:^^7T,  ::' 


F 

£04-3 

Ts 


;-NRLF 


. 

— 

1,11  JRARY 

■  >i  i  in 

University  of  California. 

<  '.  1  FT  <  >i- 

Tr 

* 

(J  ass 

•  '                 S 

/ 


i 


A   HISTORY 


-OF  THE- 


<>4\ 


H 


H    H 


TRUD 


H 


-L    X  \_  W 


H 


iJ_y. 


[^ 


IN   ENGLAND, 


-BY- 


GEN.  M.  M.  TRUMBULL. 


*"  Of  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


DES  MOINES: 

IOWA  STATE  LEADER  COMPANY, 

1882. 


1 


^'J)JvDIGATIur?-> 


'So    (Tic  SftUjfi*  SCo.i.  ;|ofni   e^ticjfit",  911.  5.,   iTic 

c  foci  no  u  I'   ftieub  cmb  ^c[■1c^v^cr    o¥    I'fic    CH  met  icon 

SveptiMic,  I"  fie-  ■ew'f-icjfil'cueb  av>uocatc  of  peace  cino 

free  t^abe  cu  it  on  cj  *f)lal'ioiu\  I' fib  iuorf»   io  topccl- 

fu  i  fij   t  n^ctibeo"   Imj 

eK  i a  o i 3 c i  p f  e   cmO  f t  i c  1 1 O, 

9H.  9TC.  ^r.m.lMifl1. 
®«**wjue,  Sowa,  9tla*c&  16,  1882. 


Diversity 

or 


History  of  Free  Trade  in  England. 


CHAPTER  I. 

By  the  Free  Trade  struggle  in  England,  we  mean  the  campaign  from 
1839  to  1846.  Of  course  there  were  enlightened  people  before  that 
time,  who  doubted  the  wisdom  of  the  Protective  system,  but  they  were 
comparatively  few;  they  were  easily  brushed  aside  by  those  who  believed 
in  the  blessings  of  scarcity,  and  who  looked  upon  abundance  as  one  of 
the  calamities  of  mankind.  The  believers  in  commercial  freedom  were 
told  that  their  doctrines  were  very  well  in  theory,  but  would  never  do 
in  practice ;  and  with  this  convenient  argument,  they  had  to  be  content. 
No  doubt  that  in  the  very  darkest  ages  of  political  economy,  when  ' '  Pro- 
tection "  nourished  in  direct  proportion  to  the  popular  ignorance,  there 
were  men  in  England  who  saw  clear  over  the  fogs  in  the  valley,  the 
humanizing  influence  of  Free  Trade,  shining  on  the  heights  beyond,  even 
as  Galileo  and  Columbus  saw  farther  and  clearer  than  the  men  around 
them;  who  thought  the  physical  sciences  were  all  very  well  in  theory, 
but  quite  unavailable  in  practice. 

Indeed,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  Adam  Smith  had  refuted  the 
arguments  on  which  the  Protective  theory  was  based,  and  which  up  to 
his  time  had  been  known  by  a  sort  of  paradox  as  the  "Commercial  Sys- 
tem." Carried  to  its  logical  results  its  effect  was  to  cripple  commerce 
by  closing  ports  to  international  trade.  In  the  time  of  Henry  Clay  it 
was  known  in  this  country  as  ' '  The  American  System, "  and  in  our  own 
day  it  is  called  by  the  captivating  title  of  ' '  Protection  to  Native  Indus- 
try." Mr.  Huskisson,  one  of  the  most  enlightened  members  of  Lord 
Liverpool's  cabinet,  made  some  advances  toward  Free  Trade,  as  early  as 
1825,  and  even  before  that  time  the  merchants  of  London  had  petitioned 
Parliament  in  behalf  of  commercial  freedom.  Their  argument  was 
remarkably  eloquent  and  clear. 

Nevertheless,  it  was  not  until  about  the  year  1836  that  the  Free 
Traders  made  any  organized  effort  against  the  insular  and  bigoted  sys- 
tem of  Protection  which  had  burdened  the  industries  of  England  for 
hundreds  of  years.  Up  to  that  time  the  liberal  and  scientific  principles 
of  Free  Trade  were  regarded  as  political  abstractions,  beautifully  adapted 
to  some  undiscovered  Utopia,  which  might  be  expected  to  appear  about 
the  time  of  the  millenium.     Up  to  that  time,   the  efforts  of  the  Free 


2  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

Traders  were  feeble  and  scattered  over  an  extensive  field,  fortified  by 
the  Protectionists  so  strongly  in  every  direction,  that  the  reformers 
made  but  slight  impression  upon  the  works  of  the  enemy. 

In  1839  the  isolated  forces  of  Free  Trade  became  a  coherent  and  dis- 
ciplined organization  under  the  name  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League. 
They  massed  themselves  for  a  concentrated  attack  upon  the  corn  laws, 
the  key  to  the  whole  protective  system.  The  corn  laws  were  to  Pro- 
tection what  the  Malakoff  was  to  Sebastopol.  When  that  fell,  the  city 
fell.  The  repeal  of  the  corn  laws  meant  the  doom  of  Protection,  and 
the  triumph  of  Free  Trade.  The  efforts  of  the  League  were  directed  to 
the  success  of  a  specific  measure,  the  repeal  of  the  duties  upon  corn. 
Under  the  general  term  "corn"  is  comprehended  flour,  wheat,  oats, 
and  breadstuffs  of  every  kind. 

Just  at  the  dawn  of  midsummer,  1837,  the  King  died,  and  the  Vic- 
torian era  began,  With  the  old  King  there  went  out  an  age  of  igno- 
rance, vice,  and  political  superstition.  "With  the  young  Queen  there 
came  in  a  better,  brighter,  and  more  enlightened  day.  There  was  vice 
enough  left,  indeed,  but  it  was  no  longer  respectable.  The  Parliament 
died  with  the  King,  and  a  new  Parliament  was  chosen.  The  contest  was 
between  the  Whigs  on  the  one  side  and  the  Tories  on  the  other.  The 
issues  were  like  many  of  the  issues  between  the  Democrats  and  Repub- 
licans in  our  own  country  now,  rather  of  the  past,  historical,  than  of  the 
present,  real.  The  offices,  however,  were  at  stake,  and  the  Whigs  won. 
They  had  a  majority  in  the  new  Parliament  of  about  thirty  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  This,  in  a  membership  of  six  hundred  and  fifty-eight, 
was  not  so  large  as  might  be  wished,  but  still,  by  keeping  close  in  shore, 
and  not  venturing  upon  the  wide  ocean  of  statesmanship,  they  could  gel 
along  with  it  comfort  a  1)1  v  well,  and  enjoy  the  power,  the  honors,  and 
the  emoluments  of  office. 

The  commercial  policy  of  the  country  was  not  much  of  an  issue  in  the 
election.  The  Tories  were  all  Protectionists,  and  so  were  mosl  of  the 
Whigs.  They  di tiered  only  in  degree,  not  in  principle.  Thirty-eight 
Free  Traders  obtained  seats  in  the  new  Parliament.  They  ranged  them 
selves  with  the  Whigs,  as  did  the  Irish  repealers,  and  the  liberals  of 
every  grade.  What  progressive  elements  there  were  in  the  politics  of 
the  time,  were  supposed  to  be  represented  in  the  Whig  party.  The 
Tories,  if  not  reactionary,  were  at  least  conservative. 

The  trifling  difference  between  the  "two  great  parties"  was  amus- 
ingly shown.     In  1839  the  ministers  came  within  live  votes  of  defeat  on 
the  Jamacia  hill,  and  at  once  resigned.     Sir  Robert  Peel  was  sent  for  to 
form  a  new  administration.     He  agreed  to  do  so,  but  required  that  c.t- 
ain  ladies  of  the  Queen's  household  should  be  removed  from  office — in 


HISTORY  OF  TREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  O 

other  words,  should  go  out  with  the  ministry.  The  Queen  would  not 
consent  to  this,  whereupon  Sir  Kobert  gave  up  his  task,  and  the  Whigs 
resumed  their  places.  These  drawing  room  politics  were  now  about  to 
be  rudely  shaken  by  the  new  power  just  born  in  the  State;  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League.  A  "live  issue"  was  about  to  be  presented  to  the 
people,  something  of  greater  consequence  than  the  question  of  what 
ladies  should  form  the  Queen's  household.  The  question  was  whether  or 
not  the  food  of  the  people  should  be  made  scarce  and  dear  by  import 
duties  on  foreign  grain,  levied  for  the  "protection"  of  a  class;  whether 
or  not  the  shackles  which  had  fettered  industry  for  centuries,  should  be 
removed,  and  the  commerce  of  England  made  free. 

The  League  was  terribly  in  earnest,  and  its  activity  disquieted  the 
' '  two  great  parties. "  Its  agents  were  in  every  town.  It  circulated 
pamphlets  literally  by  the  million.  It  assumed  the  task  of  instructing  a 
whole  people  in  the  elements  of  political  economy.  Its  orators  were 
everywhere.  In  every  corner  of  the  kingdom  they  challenged  the  Pro- 
tectionists to  public  discussion,  and  threw  them  painfully  on  the  defensive. 
In  the  manufacturing  districts  its  meetings  numbered  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands.  These  masses  of  people  did  not  have  political  influence  in 
proportion  to  their  numbers,  for  few  of  them  had  votes.  Before  the 
League  was  two  years  old  it  had  become  a  great  power  outside  the  walls 
of  Parliament,  although  inside  it  had  no  strength  except  in  the  character 
and  ability  of  its  advocates,  and  the  irresistible  logic  of  its  argument. 

The  work  before  it  was  appalling.  Monopoly  was  so  strongly  in- 
trenched in  England  as  to  seem  invincible.  It  was  supreme  in  both 
houses  of  Parliament.  The  privileged  orders  and  the  "protected" 
classes  were,  of  course,  all  defenders  of  it.  The  middle  class — the  real 
John  Bull  himself — was  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  idea  that  British 
patriotism  required  them  to  support  the  policy  which  made  them  "inde- 
pendent of  foreign  countries."  Worse  than  all — the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple— the  working  classes,  were  Protectionists,  as  we  shall  show  a  little 
further  on.  They  were  everlastingly  haunted  by  a  ghost  called  ' '  over- 
production;" they  believed  that  scarcity  was  a  good  thing,  because  it 
created  a  demand  for  labor,  and  they  dreaded  lest  they  be  brought  into 
competition  with  the  "pauper  labor"  of  foreign  countries. 

So  insignificant  was  the  influence  of  the  Free  Traders,  that,  although 
they  supported  the  Whig  party,  and  the  Whigs  were  in  power,  they 
could  not  obtain  respectful  consideration  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
On  the  18th  of  February,  1839,  Mr.  Villiers  moved  that  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Manchester  Association  should  be  heard  at  the  bar,  in  sup- 
port of  a  Free  Trade  petition,  but  the  motion  was  lost  by  more  than  two 


.  ^ 


4-  BISTORT  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

to  one;  and  we  are  informed  by  Mr.  Morley  thai  both  Lord  Palmerston 
and  Lord  John  Russel]  voted  with  the  majority. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way,  only  stimulated  the  industry  of  the  League, 
and  within  two  years  it  had  become  a  source  of  alarm  to  the  Tories,  and 
of'  perplexity  to  the  Whigs,  many  of  whom  sympathized  with  it  in  a 
general  sort  of  way.  and  to  a  limited  extent.  They  were,  however, 
timid  and  irresolute.  They  carried  on  the  ( iovernnieut  in  a  lazy,  languid 
manner,  and  seemed  anxious  to  be  "lei  alone."  They  thought  they 
could  live  forever  on  the  reform  bill  triumph  of  1832,  but  the  reform 
hill  was  only  a  beginning,  not  an  end.  The  tierce  discussion  of  that 
measure  had  stimulated  the  mental  faculties  of  the  people,  and  a  craving 
thirsl  for  knowledge  took  possession  of  them. 

The  Penny  Magazine  was  in  active  circulation,  lectures  were  popular, 
mechanics'  institutes  were  multiplying,  and,  in  the  expressive  language 
of  Lord  Brougham,  the  schoolmaster  was  abroad  in  the  land.  The 
Whi<>s  were  afraid  to  risk  their  small  majority  by  the  introduction  of 
any  great  measure  of  public  policy,  and  by  reason  of  this  very  timidity, 
their  trifling  majority  was  gradually  dwindling  away.  They  asked  per- 
mission to  doze  in  comfort  on  the  Treasury  benches,  but  the  clamor  ot 
the  League  disturbed  their  slumbers,  and  the  Tories  were  waiting  and 
watching  their  own  opportunity,  which  was  close  at  hand. 

Suddenly  it  occurred  to  the  Whigs  that  in  this  new  active  world  of 
politics,  even  governments  must  do  something  for  a  living.  They  saw 
the  tremendous  moral  power  already  in  the  hands  of  the  League,  and 
Lord  John  Russel  thought  that  if  he  could  borrow  some  of  that,  he 
might  spiritualize  the  Whigparty,  and  save  the  administration.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  month  of  April,  L841,  he  gave  notice  that  on  the  :Ust  of 
May  he  would  move  that  the  house  resolve  itself  into  a  committee,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  grain. 
This  announcement  startled  the  Tories,  for  it  showed  that  the  doctrines 
of  the  League  had  permeated  the  administration  itself.  They  closed 
their  ranks  and  assumed  the  offensive.  Lord  Sandon  asked  Lord  John 
Russell  what  the  ( Joverninent  intended  to  do  with  the  Corn  Laws.  lie 
answered  that  they  proposed  to  abolish  the  "sliding  scale,"  and  impose 
a  moderate  fixed  duty  of  eight  shillings  a  quarter  (a  shilling  a  bushel) 
upon  wheat,  and  a  proportionate  duty  upon  other  grain.  The  "sliding 
scale'1  was  a  political  contrivance  by  which  the  duties  upon  foreign 
grain  wire  fixed  according  to  the  prices  ofil  in  the  domestic  market. 
When  the  price  n\'  w  heat  in  Mark  lane  was  high,  the  duties  on  imported 
wheat   were  low,  and  sice  versa,  the  intention  being  to  keep  the  price  ot 

grain  always  at  such  a  height  as  to  furnish  the  British  farmer  a  fair 
degree  of  "protection"  againsl  the  "pauper  labor"  and  untaxed  lands 
of  foreign  countries. 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  $ 

In  this  moderate  proposition  of  Lord  John  Russell  the  Tories  saw  a 
menace  against  the  monopolies  which  they  had  enjoyed  for  centuries. 
With  the  bravery  of  desperation  they  determined  to  come  out  of  their 
intrenchments  and  attack.  They  would  not  wait  until  the  31st  of  May, 
but  determined  to  precipitate  the  issue  then  and  there. 

The  discussion  on  the  annual  budget  just  then  presented  by  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer,  resolved  itself  into  a  debate  on  the  corn  and 
sugar  duties.  The  debate  lasted  many  nights,  and  when  it  ended  the 
Tories  had  the  best  of  it.  On  the  motion  that  "the  Speaker  do  now 
leave  the  chair,"  the  Government  was  beaten  by  the  decisive  majority  of 
317  to  to  281.  The  cheers  of  the  Protectionists  rang  out  peal  after  peal 
like  the  laughter  of  a  chime  of  bells;  they  reverberated  through  the 
great  hall  of  William  Rufus;  they  burst  into  Palace  yard,  and  chased 
each  other  among  the  gothic  arches  of  the  old  abbey  across  the  way, 
where  Pitt  and  Fox  lay  sleeping  side  by  side. 

To  the  amazement  of  the  country  the  ministers  did  not  resign,  but  on 
the  next  evening  Lord  John  Russell  coolly  announced  that  he  would 
take  up  the  discussion  on  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  corn  laws  on  the 
4th  of  June;  but  before  that  day  sentence  of  dismissal  was  pronounced 
by  the  House  of  Commons  against  him  and  his  government.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  determined  not  to  allow  the  ministers  any  time  to  recover  from 
their  great  defeat.  He  therefore  introduced  his  famous  resolution  that 
Her  Majesty's  Ministers  do  not  possess  the  confidence  of  this  house. 
After  four  nights'  debate,  his  resolution  was  carried  by  a  majority  of 
one  vote;  the  numbers  were  312  to  311.  From  this  blow  the  Whig 
party  never  recovered;  it  was  stunned  and  bewildered  by  it;  the  minis- 
ters could  not  believe  it  real;  it  appeared  impossible  to  them  that  within 
ten  years  of  the  passage  of  the  reform  bill,  the  Tories  could  once  more 
be  in  the  ascendancy.  They  therefore  refused  to  resign,  but  dissolved 
the  Parliament.  They  appealed  from  the  verdict  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons to  the  tribunal  of  the  people  at  the  polls,  and  there  also  the  judg- 
ment was  against  them. 

CHAPTER  H. 

In  the  midst  of  scarcity  and  business  depression  the  election  of  1841 
was  held.  Though  but  few  Free  Traders  were  elected,  the  inspiration 
of  the  whole  contest  came  from  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League.  By  the 
moral  strength  of  its  ideas  it  seemed  to  crowd  all  other  issues  out  of  the 
way,  and  forced  a  discussion  of  the  Free  Trade  question  at  nearly  every 
polling  place  in  the  kingdom,  where  there  was  any  contest  at  all.  The 
election  resulted  in  an  overwhelming  majority  for  the  Tories.  They 
had  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  of  nearly  a  hundred  over  all 
opposing  elements   combined,  and  on  a  square  issue  with  the   Free 


6  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IK  ENGLAND. 

Traders  they  could  command  a  majority  of  more  than  three  hundred  and 
fifty  votes.  The  Protectionist  victory  was  complete,  yet  this  waa  the 
Parliament  that  was  destined,  within  five  years,  to  overthrow  the  Pro- 
tective system,  and  establish  Free  Trade  in  England  as  firmly  as  the 
British  Islands  are  anchored  in  the  sea.  When  Parliament  met  in 
August,  the  Whigs  resigned,  and  Sir  Robert  Peel  came  into  power, 
with  an  obedient  and  well  disciplined  majority  behind  him,  sufficient  to 
carry  every  measure  proposed  by  Ministers.  In  the  House  of  Lords 
his  majority  was  even  greater  than  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

In  the  new  Parliament  was  a  new  man,  a  calico  printer  from  the 
North,  a  moral  and  mental  force  so  great  that  ere  long  he  was  regarded 
by  all  Englishmen  as  the  most  important  personage  that  had  been  Been  in 
the  House  of  Commons  since  Oliver  Cromwell  had  a  seat  there.  His  name 
was  Richard  Cobden.  This  man  had  already  become  the  electric  prin- 
ciple of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League,  the  very  genius  of  the  commercial 
revolution.  He  was  a  leader  without  selfishness  or  personal  ambition,  a 
leader  whom  all  men  loved  to  follow.  He  was  a  statesman  by  instinct, 
an  organizer  with  the  genius  of  Napoleon.  He  was  an  orator  of  such 
convincing  powers  that  he  converted  more  men  to  his  views  by  simply 
talking  to  them  than  any  other  man  of  his  time,  or  perhaps  of  any  time, 
not  only  tens  of  thousands  of  Manchester  operatives,  but  even  farmer-. 
who  had  been  persuaded  that  Free  Trade  would  ruin  them.  "Without 
any  advantages  of  personal  grace,  or  any  of  the  arts  of  rhetoric,  then- 
was  an  earnest  truthfulness  about  him  that  made  a  great  impression. 
He  had  a  boundless  store  of  knowledge,  and  no  matter  how  extravagant 
his  assertions  appeared  to  be,  he  always  had  the  tacts  at  hand  to  verity 
them.  He  grouped  his  facts  together  with  great  skill,  and  moulded 
them  into  irresistible  arguments.  He  fastened  responsibility  upon  his 
adversaries  with  terrible  emphasis.  In  playful  fancy,  and  in  the  power 
of  enforcing  his  points  by  homely  illustrations  drawn  from  every-day 
life,  he  resembled  Abraham  Lincoln — or  rather  we  should  say  thai 
Lincoln  resembled  him.  He  resembled  him  in  the  abundance  of  his 
humor  and  the  quaint  sharpness  of  his  satire.  Above  all  things,  there 
was  a  candor  and  a  sincerity  about  him  thai  went  far  towards  persuading 
men  that  he  was  right.  A  deep  love  of  humanity  pervaded  all  he  wrote 
and  all  he  Baid.  His  life  was  pure,  his  character  without  reproach. 
With  the  factory  dust  upon  him,  he  faced  the  patrician  monopolists  on 
the  Tory  benches,  with  a  courage  as  high  as  that  of  the  puresl  Norman 
of  them  nil.  lie  \\:is  as  effective  inside  the  House  of  Commons  as  out 
of  it,  and  it  is  certain  that  he  converted  Sir  Etobeii  Peel,  the  leader  ol' 
the  ProtectlOnisI  parts,  to  a  belief  not  only  in  the  expediency  o\'  Tie 
Trade,  but  in  the  wisdom  and  the  justice  of  it.      In   tact   it    boded  ill   to 


DIVERSITY  J 

HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  7 

the  Tories  when  they  saw  that  their  great  chieftain  permitted  his  face  to 
show  how  he  was  hurt  by  the  shafts  of  Cobden,  and  it  boded  further 
mischief  to  them  when  they  noticed  how  he  sat  spell  bound,  listening  to 
every  word  that  fell  from  his  enemy.  We  know  now,  that  Peel  at  last 
came  completely  under  the  fascination  of  Cobden's  intellect,  and  per- 
mitted that  intellect  to  dominate  his  own. 

We  have  shown  in  the  first  chapter,  that  in  1841  Whigs  and  Tories 
were  alike  protectionists,  differing  only  in  degree.  If  further  proof  is 
needed,  let  it  be  remembered  that  a  short  time  previously  it  was  said  by 
Lord  Melbourne,  the  Whig  Prime  Minister,  that  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws  was  the  most  insane  project  that  ever  entered  man's  head,  and  the 
Tory  Chieftain,  Peel,  during  the  debate  on  the  want  of  confidence  reso- 
lution in  June,  said:  "Who  in  this  House  has  more  steadily  stood  for- 
ward in  defense  of  the  existing  Corn  Laws  than  I  have  done?"  And  to 
the  electors  of  Tamworth,  during  the  canvass  of  1841,  he  said  "that  he 
had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  existing  system  should  not  be  altered, 
and  that  our  aim  ought  to  be  to  render  ourselves  independent  of  foreign 
supply,"  the  ready  jargon  which  protectionists  have  used  in  all  countries, 
and  in  every  age. 

In  spite  of  all  attempts  to  draw  him  out  during  the  first  session  of  the 
New  Parliament,  Sir  Kobert  Peel  refused  to  disclose  the  future  policy  of 
his  government.  October  came  and  still  his  plans  were  wrapped  in 
mystery.  Subsequent  events  convince  us  that  he  did  not  know  them 
himself.  Parliament  adjourned  until  February,  and  he  took  till  then  to 
consider  what  was  best  to  do.  The  short  session  of  1841  was  not  remark- 
able for  anything  except  that  Cobden  spoke  then  for  the  first  time  in 
Parliament.  He  exposed  the  sufferings  of  the  people  to  the  gaze  of  the 
Senate,  and  charged  against  the  Protective  system  the  prostration  of 
English  industry.  He  gave  notice  to  both  Whigs  and  Tories,  that  the 
question  of  the  Corn  Laws  must  be  met,  and  that  a  fearful  responsibility 
should  be  laid  on  those  who  taxed  the  food  of  the  people.  There  were 
those  who  sneered  at  this  unpleasant  person,  but  it  is  certain  that  the 
country  gentlemen  would  have  spent  a  more  agreeable  Christmas  if  he 
had  not  spoken  at  all. 

During  the  recess  the  League  was  hard  at  work.  The  Free  Trade 
agitation  was  extended  to  Ireland  and  Scotland.  Newspapers  were 
started  and  vast  numbers  of  pamphlets  were  distributed  in  every  direc- 
tion. Heaps  of  information  concerning  every  trade  and  occupation  in 
the  kingdom  were  piled  up  for  use  in  the  next  Parliament.  Meanwhile 
there  was  great  anxiety  throughout  the  country  as  to  the  intentions  of 
the  Government.  Cabinet  meetings  were  held,  but  not  a  word  leaked 
out  as  to  their  proceedings.     The  two  or  three  speeches  made  by  Cob- 


8  BISTORT  <»r  FREE  TRADE  IN   ENGLAND. 

den  at  tho  short  session  had  sunk  deep  into  the  mind  of  Peel.  The 
proof  of  it  is  clear.  During  the  canvass,  in  the  summer,  he  had  declared 
that  "the  existing  system  should  no1  be  altered;"  in  the  winter,  he  had 
changed  his  mind.     Why?     In  that  interval  he  had  heard  Cobden. 

A  trifling  incident  which  occurred  jusl  before  the  opening  of  Parlia 
ment  alarmed  the  monopolists,  and  convinced  the  country  that  the 
League  was  actually  making  discord  in  the  Tory  Cabinet  itself.  The 
incident  was  this:  The  Toryist  Tory  in  all  England  Mas  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham,  and  he  was  in  the  Cabinet.  With  the  Mood  of  Henry 
Plantagenet  in  his  veins,  and  the  lordship  of  thousands  of  broad  acres  in 
his  possession,  he  was  a  stately  specimen  of  that  haughty  Norman  aris- 
tocracy which  for  nearly  eight  hundred  years  had  held  the  Saxon  in  a 
state  of  serfdom,  and  had  kept  his  lands  by  right  of  conquest.  So  long 
as  he  was  in  the  Cabinet,  it  "was  certain  that  modern  civilization  would 
be  excluded  from  its  councils;  that  no  such  vulgar  theme  as  "econom- 
ics" would  be  debated  at  its  meetings.  So  long  as  he  was  in  the  Cab- 
inet monopoly  mighl  sleep  in  peace;  the  feudal  system  would  stand  firm, 
grim  and  defiant,  as  the  Tower  of  London  itself.  One  morning  it  was 
whispered  at  the  Carlton  Club  that  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  had 
resigned,  and  the  whisper  was  correct.  Then  the  country  knew  that 
some  changes  in  the  Corn  Laws  had  been  determined  on.  Inspirited  by 
the  news,  the  League  worked  harder  than  before. 

The  year  L842  opened  gloomily.  There  was  great  distress  through- 
out the  country,  and  there  was  a  deficit  in  the  revenue  of  more  than 
twelve  millions  of  dollars.  When  Parliament  met  in  February,  there 
was  very  great  anxiety  to  know  what  the  Government  meant  to  do.  To 
the  consternation  of  the  monopolists,  Sir  Robert  Peel  announced  that  it 
was  his  intention  to  meet  the  deficit  by  the  imposition  of  an  income  tax; 
that,  although  he  should  maintain  the  "sliding  scale."  the  duties  mi 
COITl  and  provisions  would   be  reduced.      He   also  said   that    it    was   the 

intention  of  the  Government  to  revise  the  tariff,  so  as  to  deprive  it  of  its 
prohibitory  features,  and  to  lower  the  duties  on  about   seven  hundred 

and  fifty  articles.  This,  from  a  Protectionist  Tory  Mini-try,  was  a  great 
advance,  and  showed  that  small  as  was  the  number  of    Free  Traders   in 

the  House  of  Commons,  the  ideas  of  the  League  had  actually  affected 
the  policy  of  the  ( i<>\  ernment. 

The  natural  result  of  compromise  followed.  The  Government  \\:i- 
bitterly  assailed  by  both  sides;  by  the  Protectionists,  for  having  yielded 
anything  to  the  League,  and  by  the  Free  Traders  for  not  yielding  more. 

Cobden  was  unsparing  and  fierce  in  his  denunciations;  immense  meet- 
ings were  held  in  the  North,  and  in    all    the   manufacturing    country,    at 

which  resolutions  were  passed  savagely  condemning  the  ministry.     At 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  0 

some  of  these  meetings  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  burned  in  effigy,  a  barbarous 
insult,  which  deeply  wounded  him,  and  of  which  he  rightfully  com- 
plained. Cobden,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  League  were  not  respons- 
ible for  these  excesses,  any  further  than  all  popular  leaders  are  responsible 
for  the  mad  acts  of  their  followers,  who  rush  past  them  and  out  of  their 
control. 

The  debate  of  1842  is  a  great  event  in  the  political  history  of  England. 
Sir  Robert  Peel  introduced  his  plans  with  a  very  ingenius  and  compre- 
hensive speech;  a  speech  which  showed  that  he  was  complete  master  of 
the  subject,  and  familiar  with  all  the  details  of  England's  commercial 
and  industrial  condition.  He  didn't  believe  that  the  Corn  Laws  were 
responsible  for  the  distress  which  he  admitted  did  exist.  He  found 
reasons  for  it  in  all  the  corners  of  the  earth  from  China  to  America.  He 
was  weak  enough  to  attribute  some  of  it  to  the  displacement  of  hand 
labor  by  steam  power,  to  over-investment  of  borrowed  capital,  and  to 
alarms  of  war;  to  anything  in  fact  but  the  Corn  Laws.  Still,  he  pro- 
posed some  amendment  to  these  laws.  He  thought  that  the  ''sliding 
scale "  could  be  so  amended  that  the  price  of  wheat  would  not  vary 
much  from  somewhere  between  fifty-four  and  fifty-eight  shillings  a 
quarter  (about  a  dollar  and  seventy-five  cents  a  bushel.)  He  contended 
that  the  country  should  rely  upon  home  production  for  its  food  supply, 
and  should  be  willing  to  pay  an  extra  price  for  it,  because  of  the  advan- 
tage of  being  "independent  of  foreign  countries." 

According  to  the  etiquette  of  Parliament,  the  duty  of  answering  the 
Prime  Minister  fell  upon  the  leader  of  the  opposition,  and  Lord  John 
Russell  rose  to  perform  that  duty.  He  had  very  little  to  say.  A  Pro- 
tectionist himself,  he  didn't  know  how  much  of  the  ministerial  plan  he 
might  dare  to  criticise,  and  no  doubt  he  felt  himself  that  night  to  be 
entirely  overmatched  by  Peel.  He  therefore  stammered  out  a  few  sen- 
tences just  to  show  that  he  was  in  opposition,  and  sat  down.  But  there 
was  a  man  there  who  was  not  afraid  even  of  the  accomplished  minister; 
that  man  was  Cobden.  He  denounced  the  plan  of  the  Government  as 
quite  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory,  because  it  did  not  reach  down  and 
remove  the  real  causes  of  the  people's  poverty.  This  kind  of  argument, 
though  severe,  could  be  endured,  but  when  the  orator,  out  of  his  abund- 
ant knowledge,  showed  that  the  Prime  Minister  was  in  error  as  to  his 
facts,  and  in  that  way  toppled  over  the  stately  framework  of  his  reason- 
ing, the  House  of  Commons  recognized  at  once,  that  the  smoky  countiy 
had  sent  a  man  to  Parliament  who  was  so  thoroughly  informed  as  to  the 
agricultural,  the  manufacturing,  and  the  commercial  condition  of  Eng- 
land, that  not  even  Peel,  the  greatest  debater  there,  could  safely  make  a 
statement  on  insufficient  evidence,   or  even  venture  an  opinion  on  any 


10  HISTORY  Or  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

doubtful  testimony.  Here  was  a  man  whose  facts  fell  upon  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  with  the  force  of  the  blows  delivered  by  the  steam  ham- 
mer in  his  factory.  The  oratory  of  the  colleges  retreated  from  a  contest 
with  the  untutored  eloquence  of  this  new  member,  who  actually  earned 
his  own  living.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  grand,  impassive,  cold,  lost  his  ancient 
self-command  under  the  oratory  of  Cobden,  and  allowed  his  countenance 
to  betray  the  emotions  that  stirred  the  very  depths  of  his  conscience 
and  his  intellect. 

With  the  exception  of  his  affected  superstitious  dread  of  "steam 
power,"  which  was  unworthy  of  him,  it  was  noticed  that  Peel,  in  his 
great  speech,  had  been  careful  not  to  insult  the  intelligence  of  his  hearers 
by  asserting  the  false  and  flippant  maxims  which  formed  then  as  now 
the  stock  in  trade  of  the  Protectionist  party.  He  scorned  to  use  the 
customary^  cant  that  high  prices  of  the  necessaries  of  life  made  wages 
higher,  and  therefore  were  a  benefit  to  the  working  man.  He  knew  that 
his  speech  was  going  down  to  posterity,  and  he  preferred  that  it  should 
not  be  disfigured  by  such  fallacies.  As  the  Edinburgh  Review  said  at 
the  time,  he  left  the  utterance  of  these  absurdities  to  his  subordinates. 
With  what  inward  scorn  he  must  have  heard  Sir  Edward  Knatchbull,  a 
member  of  his  own  Cabinet,  declare,  amidst  uproarious  ridicule,  that 
"the  duty  on  corn  should  be  calculated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  return  to 
the  landed  interest  full  security  for  their  property,  and  for  the  station  in 
the  country  which  they  had  hitherto  held."  No  matter  how  biting  the 
hunger  of  the  industrious  poor  might  be,  the  price  of  bread  must  be  kept 
so  high  that  the  idle,  fox  hunting,  horse  racing  aristocracy  might  still 
riot  in  profligate  extravagance. 

The  progress  of  this  instructive  debate  proved  how  true  it  is  that 
"fools  rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread."  "Peart  and  chipper"  young 
statesmen  on  the  Tory  side  hurled  right  in  the  face  of  Cobden,  Pro- 
tectionist maxims  that  Peel  would  have  been  afraid  to  utter.  One  of 
the  Prime  Minister's  young  statesmen  was  the  Marquis  of  Granby,  a 
coining  Duke,  who  knew  as  much  about  political  economy  as  the  wooden 
efligy  of  his  ancestor,  the  historic  "Markis  O'Granby"  which  swung 
from  the  sign  post  of  the  hospitable  tavern  at  hoiking,  once  kept  by 
Mr.  Tony  Weller.  The  Marquis  told  the  House  of  Commons  thai  "the 
experience  of  all  Europe  shows  that  the  certain  consequence  iA'  making 
food  cheap  is  to  lower  wages."  Sir  Francis  Burdett,  who  for  forty 
years   had    been  a  radical    reformer  and    a   revolutionist,    who  had   once 

been  c mitte.l  to  the  Tower  by  the  House  of  Commons,  and  who  had 

joined  the  Tories  in  his  old  age,  declared  that  "to  the  laboring  classes 
the  price. of  corn  did  not  signify  one  straw."  Lord  Malum  and  Mr. 
Stuart    Wort  ley  talked  in  the  same  strain,   and  even  Mr.  Gladstone 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  11 

fluently  prattled  about  "the  fallacy  of  cheap  bread."  No  wonder  that 
Mr.  Cobden  taunted  the  Tory  members  about  their  ignorance,  declaring 
that  no  such  ignorance  could  be  found  among  any  equal  number  of 
working  men  in  the  North  of  England.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  the 
winding  up  of  the  debate  showed  a  very  comfortable  majority  for  the 
Tories  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-three. 

CHAPTER  in. 

In  the  month  of  May  there  was  a  long  debate  on  the  new  tariff.  This 
debate  is  a  curiosity  now.  With  that  speculative  wonder  which  moves 
us  as  we  roam  through  the  great  national  museums  of  Europe,  and  gaze 
on  the  mummies  of  old  Egypt,  so  we  wander  through  the  mazes  of  this 
debate,  and  look  upon  the  mummified  theories  of  "Protection."  It  is 
hard  to  realize  that  only  one  generation  ago  English  statesmen  actually 
believed  that  by  making  everything  scarce  and  dear  the  general  pros 
perity  was  increased.  It  would  be  even  laughable  if  this  mischevious 
delusion  had  not  emigrated  to  America  and  taken  possession  of  our  states- 
men here  to  the  serious  injury  of  the  productive  classes.  The  old 
superstition,  now  obsolete  in  England,  still  flourishes  in  the  United 
States. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  introduced  his  new  tariff  with  many  apologies  to  the 
Protectionists,  and  assurances  that  it  wouldn't  hurt  them  very  much. 
Like  a  mother  giving  physic  to  her  children,  he  told  them  that  it  was 
good  for  them,  and  that  if  the  taste  was  slightly  unpleasant  they  would  be 
all  the  better  for  it  in  the  end.  When  the  portly  getlemen  of  the  ' '  land- 
ed interest "  complained  that  fat  cattle  and  lean  were  to  be  admitted  at 
the  same  figures,  instead  of  being  taxed  according  to  their  weight,  the 
bland  Sir  Robert  told  them  that  it  was  all  the  better  for  them,  because 
said  he,  the  English  graziers  can  import  lean  cattle  at  a  low  rate  of  duty, 
and  fatten  them  for  market,  and  as  to  fat  cattle  they  wouldn't  be  import- 
ed anyhow.  They  couldn't  stand  a  sea  voyage.  "No  fat  ox,"  he  said, 
"could  stand  a  trip  across  the  Bay  of  Biscay,"  and  as  for  France,  why 
none  would  come  from  there,  because  that  country  was  herself  import- 
ing cattle.  He  showed  that  none  wTould  come  from  Belgium,  Holland, 
Germany  or  the  Prussian  League,  and  then  with  grim  flattery  he  told 
them  that  the  English  beef  was  so  much  better  than  any  other  kind  that 
it  would  always  bring  a  higher  price  in  the  market.  With  one  side  of 
his  mouth  he  was  telling  the  hungry  people  that  he  was  about  to  cheapen 
beef  by  letting  foreign  cattle  in,  and  with  the  other  he  was  quieting  the 
protectionists  with  a  lot  of  blarney,  and  the  assurance  that,  although  he 
was  about  to  open  the  gates,  the  lean  cattle  wouldn't  come  in  and  the 
fat  cattle  couldn't. 


12  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

When  Sir  Robert  sal  down  Mr.  Hume  congratulated  the  ministers  on 
their  conversion  to  the  principles  of  Free  Trade.  This  pleasantry  was 
resented  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  declared  that  no  conversion  had  taken 
place,  and  that  their  opinions  remained  unchanged.  As  a  discrimination 
was  made  in  the  new  tariff  in  favor  of  the  British  colonies,  a  great  deal 
of  alarm  was  manifested,  lest  the  Americans  should  smuggle  their  bacon 
and  other  produce  into  England,  by  the  way  of  Canada,  and  thus  obtain 
the  benefit  of  the  colonial  tariff;  but  this  was  quieted  by  Mr.  Gladstone, 
who  didn't  think  that  the  Americans  would  do  any  such  thing.  Certainly 
not. 

Even  potatoes  had  been  shut  out  of  the  country  by  high  protective 
duties.  The  new  tariff  admitted  them  on  payment  of  two  pence  per 
hundred  weight  from  foreign  countries,  and  one  penny  per  hundred 
weight  from  British  colonies.  It  wras  contended  that  twelve  pence  per 
hundred  weight  was  little  enough  "protection"  for  the  English  potato 
grower,  and  that  it  was  the  highest  patriotism  to  keep  old  England  inde- 
pendent of  foreign  potatoes. 

Every  monopoly  protested  against  the  new  tariff.  The  miners  of 
( Jornwall  protested  against  a  reduction  of  the  duties  on  metal  ores,  and 
the  members  from  that  county  gave  warning  that  if  the  dee])  mines  of 
Cornwall  were  once  abandoned,  they  would  never  be  worked  again. 
Some  other  people  protested  against  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  iron, 
because  it  was  necessary  that  British  iron  should  be  protected  against 
the  pauper  iron  of  Germany.  Some  persons  owned  a  stone  quarry  on 
the  isle  of  Portland.  They  protested  against  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
building  stone,  and  declared  that  such  reduction  would  be  the  ruin  of 
their  "industry."  Even  the  wretched  Irish  peasant  claimed  protection 
for  his  pig,  and  Mr.  Smith  O'Brien  actually  moved  to  increase  the  duty 
on  swine  from  live  shillings  a  head  all  round  to  four  shillings  a  hun- 
dred weight.  Every  ••interest"  predicted  ruin  to  the  country  if  its 
particular  monopoly  should  he  disturbed. 

When  the  hill  went  up  to  the  Lords  it  had  of  course  to  run  the  gauntlet 
of  the  same  opposition  it  had  met  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord 
Stanhope  used  an  argument  which  sounds  very  familiar  to  us  here  in 
America.  The  reduction  of  duties,  he  said,  would  cause  great  distress 
among  'he  industrious  classes,  with  whom  the  •'foreigner"  was  put 
unfairly  in  competition;  and  the  Duke  of  Richmond  opposed  it  because 
it  brought  the  English  producer  into  competition  with  the  '-pauper  labor" 
of  foreign  countries.     Nevertheless  the  hill  was  allowed  to  puss. 

The  House  of  Lords  being  composed  almost  exclusively  of  great  land- 
owners and  monopolist-,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  principles  of  Free 
Trade  were  looked  upon  in  that   House  as  very  low  and  vulgar,  a-   revo 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  13 

lutionary  in  fact,  and  destructive  of  that  hoary,  feudal  system  on  which 
the  aristocracy  of  England  rested.  The  noble  peers  regarded  pheasants 
and  peasants  as  alike  made  for  their  exclusive  use  and  pleasure,  and 
being  a  very  ignorant  set  of  people,  they  were  easily  thrown  into  panic 
whenever  they  thought  their  monopolies  were  threatened.  They 
regarded  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  as  a  monster  more  revolutionary 
and  dreadful  than  even  the  steam  engine,  or  the  electric  telegraph,  or  an 
untaxed  newspaper.  On  the  19th  of  April,  1842,  Lord  Brougham 
moved  in  the  House  of  Peers,  that  no  tax  should  be  levied  upon  corn, 
either  for  protection  or  for  revenue.  We  are  not  surprised  that  this 
motion  was  lost  by  89  to  6.     The  wonder  is  where  the  6  came  from. 

In  August  Parliament  adjourned,  and  people  had  time  to  foot  up  the 
accounts  of  the  session,  and  strike  a  balance  of  party  gains  and  losses. 
There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  amount  of  profit  and  loss, 
but  all  agreed  that  whatever  gains  had  been  made  must  be  placed  to  the 
credit  of  the  Free  Traders,  and  that  the  losses  were  all  on  the  side  of  the 
Protectionists.  The  material  gain  to  the  Free  Traders  made  by  the 
reduction  of  duties  in  the  new  tariff  was  trifling  in  comparison  to  the 
moral  victory  they  had  won  in  compelling  the  Ministry  to  concede  the 
principle  of  Free  Trade.  It  was  noticed  that  in  all  the  debate  the  Min- 
isters had  been  careful  not  to  defend  Protection  on  its  merits.  They 
apologized  for  it  and  pleaded  for  it.  They  argued  that  great  interests 
had  grown  up  around  it,  that  society  had  shaped  itself  to  it,  and  that  it 
could  not  be  suddenly  and  violently  overthrown  without  carrying  in  its 
fall  the  ruin  of  the  protected  classes,  but  they  did  not  defend  it  as  a  cor- 
rect principle  of  political  economy. 

Armed  with  this  concession  the  League  renewed  its  assualt  upon 
monopoly,  and  during  the  recess  it  was  busily  educating  the  people  and 
creating  a  public  opinion  that  should  be  more  potent  in  the  next  session 
than  it  had  ever  been  before.  Great  public  meetings  were  held  in  all 
parts  of  the  country,  and  Free  Trade  resolutions  were  adopted  at  all  of 
them.  On  the  22d  of  November  there  was  a  tremendous  meeting  of  the 
League  at  Manchester,  which  resolved  to  raise  $250,000  for  the  work, 
and  $20,000  of  it  was  put  into  the  hat  there  and  then.  This  was  con- 
sidered a  great  collection  for  one  meeting,  and  yet  before  the  work  was 
ended  $300,000  was  contributed  to  the  League  fund  at  one  meeting  in 
that  very  same  town. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  John  Bright  began  to  be  recognized  as  a 
power  in  the  State.  Although  not  yet  in  Parliament,  his  influence  out- 
side of  it  was  almost  as  great  as  Cobden's  inside.  A  massive  English- 
man was  John  Bright,  a  handsome  man,  strong  of  body  and  brain,  one 
of  the  few  great  orators  of  modern  England;  his  eloquence  was  copious, 

OF  THE 


14  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

pure,  sparkling,  strong;  his  invective  burned  like  fire.  He  was  more 
fluent  and  stately  than  Cobden,  though  no  man  could  be  more  con- 
vincing. His  voice  was  melodious,  his  magnetism  great,  and  thousands 
of  men  crowded  and  jostled  one  another  to  get  near  him.  They  saw  in 
him  one  of  the  great  apostles  of  peace,  a  man  whose  politics  were  gov- 
erned and  controlled  by  the  most  sublime  religion.  Second  to  Cobden, 
and  to  Cobden  alone,  was  John  Bright,  in  the  great  work  of  lifting  the 
incubus  of  the  protective  tariff  from  the  industries  of  Great  Britian.  He 
rendered  great  service  between  the  close  of  the  session  of  1841  and  the 
opening  of  the  session  of  1843. 

When  Parliament  met  in  1843,  Lord  Howick  moved  that  the  House  go 
into  Committee  to  consider  the  distress  of  the  country,  and  thereupon 
arose  one  of  the  most  instructive  debates  that  ever  took  place  in  Parlia- 
ment. Lord  Howick  contended  that  the  protective  tariff  had  crippled 
the  agricultural,  the  manufacturing,  and  the  shipping  interests  of  the 
country,  and  argued  that  the  Corn  Laws  ought  to  be  repealed.  We 
can  hardly  conceive  that  the  present  Prime  Minister  of  England,  the 
great  leader  of  the  Liberal  party,  was,  that  night,  the  Tory  cham- 
pion, whose  duty  it  became  to  answer  Lord  Howick.  Mr.  Gladstone 
admitted  the  distress  of  the  country,  and  even  conceded  much  of  the 
argument  of  his  adversary,  but  resisted  the  motion  on  the  ground  of 
expediency;  it  wasn't  the  time  to  repeal  the  Corn  Laws;  the  measures  of 
last  session  had  not  had  a  fair  trial;  they  ought  to  see  what  other  coun- 
tries would  do  to  reciprocate  a  reduction  of  duties;  England  could  not 
be  expected  to  open  her  ports,  while  she  had  hostile  foreign  tariffs  to 
contend  against,  and  so  on.  Never  once  did  he  contend  that  the  Pro- 
tective system  was  sound,  either  in  morals  or  as  a  system  of  social  science. 
His  speech  was  an  excuse  for  protection,  not  a  defense  of  it. 

The  Protectionist  principle  that  the  end  of  all  true  political  economy 
is  to  promote  scarcity,  found  outspoken  champions  in  this  debate.  Mr. 
Ferrand,  a  Protectionist  from  Yorkshire,  contended  that  the  distress  of 
the  country  was  all  owing  to  machinery,  that  if  machinery  could  be 
done  away  with,  the  conveniences  of  life  would  become  scarcer,  and 
this  would  create  a  demand  for  labor,  the  people  would  all  get  employ- 
ment at  good  wages,  and  prosperity  would  be  the  result.  He  WSB  not 
alone  in  this  opinion,  for  Mr.  Liddell  thought  that  Lord  Ilowiek's  plan 
of  Opening  up  new  markets  would  do  no  good,  because  no  matter  how 
many  new  markets  were  opened  up,  such  was  the  tremendous  power  of 
machinery  in  England,  that  they  would  soon  be  overstocked,  as  well  as 
the  old.     Mr.    Ward  apologized  for  machinery  on  the  curious  ground 

that  it  was  necessary,    in    order    for   the    English   to    compete    with   the 
cheaper  labor  and  more  fertile  soil  of  other  countries.     He  thought  t!*ut 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  lb 

the  Americans  had  made  a  mistake  in  their  high  protective  tariff  of 
1842,  but  contended  that  the  English  had  provoked  it  by  fixing  such  a 
high  duty  on  American  corn.  The  most  bewildering  doctrine  that  this 
remarkable  debate  produced  came  from  Mr.  Muntz,  member  from  the 
important  town  of  Birmingham,  who  contended  that  the  present  con- 
dition of  things  was  unnatural,  and  that  ' '  we  must  either  repeal  the 
Corn  Laws,  or  lower  the  price  of  silver."  It  is  comforting  to  know  that 
the  silver  lunacy  is  not  a  new  disease,  peculiar  to  the  United  States. 
No  wonder  that  the  common  people  should  have  such  crude  notions  on 
the  science  of  political  economy,  when  the  statesmen  of  the  country 
could  talk  as  they  did  in  this  debate. 

Mr.  Cobden  replied  to  the  Protectionists  in  a  very  vigorous,  and  what 
proved  to  be  a  very  unfortunate  speech.  In  the  course  of  it  he  declared 
that  he  held  the  Prime  Minister  individually  responsible  for  the  "dis- 
tress of  the  country,"  and  he  repeated  this  expression  with  strong- 
emphasis.  Sir  Robert  Peel  rose  in  a  state  of  nervous  excitement  and 
resented  this  personal  attack.  His  private  secretary,  Mr.  Drummond, 
had  been  assassinated  a  few  days  before,  in  mistake  for  him,  and  the 
tragedy  shocked  him  greatly.  He  accused  Mr.  Cobden  of  pointing  him 
out  for  assassination,  and  the  sympathy  of  the  House  was  with  Peel. 
In  vain  Mr.  Cobden  tried  to  explain  that  a  wrong  interpretation  had 
been  put  upon  his  words.     The  House  refused  to  hear  him. 

This  incident  was  a  most  unhappy  one,  for  it  placed  those  graat  men 
in  the  position  of  personal  enemies  for  two  years,  a  position  which  caused 
Mr.  Cobden  to  be  unjust  to  Peel,  on  more  than  one  occasion.  In  strik- 
ing contrast,  it  must  be  said  that  the  treatment  of  Cobden  by  Sir  Robert 
Peel  was  all  the  time  in  the  highest  degree  magnanimous.  The  sus- 
picion of  a  motive  so  abhorrent  to  his  gentle  nature  wounded  Cobden  so 
keenly  that  it  seemed  almost  impossible  to  forgive  the  man  who,  even  in 
the  excitement  of  a  great  debate,  could  impute  it  to  him.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  many  that  although  the  Free  Traders  had  the  best  of  the 
argument,  this  advantage  was  thrown  away  by  Cobden's  indiscreet  attack 
upon  the  Prime  Minister.  It  isn't  likely  that  it  affected  any  votes  either 
one  way  or  the  other.  The  division  showed  a  majority  for  the  Minister 
of  one  hundred  and  fifteen. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

In  May  1843,  Mr.  Villiers  brought  forth  his  annual  motion  for  a  total 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  This  debate  was,  if  possible,  more  remark- 
able in  its  display  of  statesmanlike  ignorance  than  the  other,  but  unlike 
the  other,  the  ignorance  was  not  all  on  the  side  of  the  Protectionists. 
Even  Mr.  Villiers  himself  showed  a  remarkable  forgetfulness  of  hi* 


16  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IX  ENGLAND. 

geography  when  he  said  ' '  the  use  of  wheaten  bread  is  denied  to  ten  mill- 
ions of  people,  while  a  plague  had  arisen  in  Louisiana,  because  the  pro- 
duce was  left  to  rot  upon  the  ground  for  want  of  a  market.''  He  evi- 
dently had  a  very  confused  idea  of  where  Louisiana  was,  or  what  was 
the  nature  of  her  products.  That  wheat  rotting  on  the  ground  should 
produce  a  plague,  was  a  phenomenon  outside  all  the  laws  of  physiology 
and  peculiar  to  the  State  of  Louisiana. 

Once  more  it  became  the  duty  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  answer  the  Free 
Traders,  and  he  contented  himself  with  leaving  them  unanswered.  He 
did  not  deny  either  their  facts  or  their  conclusions.  He  admitted  the 
distress  of  the  people,  but  contended  that  they  were  better  oft'  than  they 
were  two  hundred  years  ago,  which  was  an  unsubstantial  sort  of  com- 
fort, but  hardly  satisfactory.  He  made  the  very  important  announce- 
ment that  the  government  would  not  consent  to  any  further  modifications 
of  the  protective  system.  The  measures  of  last  year  had  not  yet  had  a 
fair  trial. 

In  this  debate  the  wisdom  of  biting  off  your  nose  to  spite  your  face 
was  maintained  by  some  ignorant  statesmen  who  knew  no  better,  and 
by  some  intelligent  statesmen  like  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  did  know  better. 
It  was  contended  that  if  foreign  countries  would  not  open  their  ports  to 
British  manufactures,  England  should  close  her  ports  against  their 
wheat  and  bacon.  That  the  English  people  were  suffering  for  want  of 
food  made  no  difference.  They  should  maintain  "reciprocity,"  even  at 
the  price  of  starvation. 

The  "  reciprocity "  theory  did  good  service  to  the  ministers  in  this 
debate.  Whether  or  not  they  believed  in  it  themselves  is  doubtful. 
perhaps  some  of  them  did.  It  was  quite  evident  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  had  not  yet  learned  that  it  is 
a  good  thing  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  market,  even  if  you  cannot  sell  in 
the  dearest,  and  so  they  kept  ringing  the  changes  on  "reciprocity." 
Mr.  Christopher  maintained  that  to  adopt  Free  Trade  without  any  guar- 
antee of  "reciprocity"  from  foreign  countries,  would  be  useless  to  the 
manufacturers,  and  ruinous  to  the  agriculturists 

One  ardent  member,  Mr.  Thornley,  had  become  so  zealously  inter- 
ested in  the  "reciprocity"  plan,  that  he  just  stepped  over  to  America  to 
have  a  talk  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  about  it.  It  is  a 
mortifying  fact  that  the  President  filled  him  full  of  lies,  and  false  prom- 
ises, and  then  sent  him  home  again.  Mr.  Thornley  told  the  House  that 
if  the  Kngli^h  would  adopt  Free  Trade,  the  Ariel' leans  would  immedi- 
ately do  the  same;  that  Mr.  Tyler  told  him  so.  Mr.  Tyler  also  told 
him  that  the  only  obstacle  to  an  extended  trade  between  the  two  coun- 
tries was  the  English  Corn  Law.  All  that  was  necessary  to  establish 
"reciprocity"  was  for  the  English  to  begin. 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  17 

Mr.  Cobden  showed  that  the  only  way  to  raise  the  price  of  corn  was 
by  making  it  scarce,  and  that  this  was  the  object  of  the  present  law.  He 
declared  that  no  party  had  the  right  to  make  the  food  of  the  people 
scarce.  To  ordinary  minds  these  propositions  appear  to  be  self-evident, 
and  yet  there  was  a  great  party  in  England  that  denied  them,  and  main- 
tained that  the  food  of  the  people  ought  to  be  made  dear  in  order  to  ' 
protect  the  farmer  against  the  cheaper  labor,  the  richer  soil,  and  the  finer 
climate  of  other  lands.  Unhappily,  this  party  controlled  the  House  of 
Commons,  as  the  division  showed,  for  the  Free  Traders  were  beaten  by 
the  frightful  majority  of  381  to  12o. 

In  the  month  of  June  the  subject  came  up  again  in  a  discussion  as  to 
the  relative  merits  of  Tweedledum  and  Tweedledee.  Lord  John  Russell 
moved  to  go  into  Committee  to  take  into  consideration  the  laws  relating 
to  the  importation  of  foreign  grain.  As  he  was  at  that  time  a  Pro- 
tectionist himself,  and  differed  with  Peel  only  in  preferring  a  fixed  duty 
to  the  "sliding  scale,"  his  motion  had  no  practical  value  whatever, 
except  to  keep  debate  alive.  It  gave  an  opportunity  for  a  repetition  of 
the  old  arguments  against  the  Corn  Laws,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  answered 
them  again  as  before.  The  debate  served  the  useful  purpose  of  drawing 
from  the  Government  the  positive  avowal  that  no  change  in  the  Corn 
Laws  would  be  permitted.  Mr.  Gladstone  declared  that  the  measures 
of  last  year  were  a  virtual  contract  between  the  government  and  the 
agricultural  interest,  and  that  it  would  be  dishonorable  to  disturb  it. 
This  loving  debate  between  the  Whigs  and  the  Tories,  as  to  whether  a 
fixed  duty  or  a  sliding  scale  was  most  effective  in  protecting  the  aris- 
tocracy, was  rudely  broken  into  by  blunt  old  Hume,  who  declared  that 
all  "protection"  was  spoliation  and  injustice,  and  ought  to  be  abolished. 
Although  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Mr.  Gladstone  both  declared,  in  the 
course  of  this  debate,  that  the  law  of  the  last  session  should  be  main- 
tained, there  was  a  fidgety  unrest  among  the  monopolists,  for  fear  that 
the  Ministers  would  be  again  driven  from  their  policy  by  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League. 

Thus  far  we  have  chiefly  spoken  of  the  Free  Trade  struggle  as  it  was 
fought  in  Parliament,  up  to  the  summer  of  1S43.  Outside,  the  contest 
was  sharper  still,  and  far  more  vigorous.  The  work  of  the  reformers 
was  harder  too.  A  whole  people  had  to  be  aroused,  instructed,  con- 
vinced. An  irresistible  public  opinion  must  be  created,  without  which 
all  efforts  in  Parliament  would  be  in  vain.  The  upper  classes  of  the 
English  people  were  Protectionists  from  interest,  the  lower  classes  from 
prejudice.  The  middle  classes,  though  largely  Protectionists,  were 
divided,  but  amongst  them  lay  the  strength  of  the  Free-Traders. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  English  lower  classes  were  Protectionists. 


18  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  EN  ENGLAND. 

All  their  prejudices  lay  in  that  direction.  The  Englishman  was  exclu- 
sive, partly  by  nature,  and  partly  because  of  geographical  conditions. 
His  island  being  cut  off  by  the  sea  from  the  continent  of  Europe,  he 
became  a  sea-girt  sort  of  personage  himself.  lie  was  arrogant  and  con- 
ceited. He  displayed  a  boorish,  uncouth  contempt  toward-  all  foreign- 
ers, never  allowing  that  any  change  of  latitude  or  longitude  could  make 
a  foreigner  of  him.  Even  in  Paris  he  complacently  regarded  all  the 
Frenchmen  he  met  upon  the  Boulevards  as  "Foreigners."  He  a 
always  bidding  "defiance  to  the  world."  He  christened  his  war  ships 
"Bulldog,"  "Vixen,"  "Spitfire,"  " Destruction, "  "Devastation," 
"Terrible,"  "Vengeance,"  "Conqueror,"  and  similar  pet  names.  His 
great  chest  would  pant  like  a  blacksmith's  bellows  as  he  roared  in  the 
ears  of  all  mankind  his  unpolite  refrain,  "Britannia  rules  the  waves." 
He  thought  that  the  people  of  other  nations  had  but  little  to  eat;  that 
the  Frenchman  lived  on  frogs,  the  Italian  on  maccarroni,  and  the  Ger- 
man on  an  inferior  quality  of  cabbage.     He  was  a  natural  Protectionist. 

The  lower  classes  of  the  English  people  were  very  much  like  the 
lower  classes  of  some  other  people,  insanely  jealous  of  those  whom  they 
regarded  as  lower  yet  than  themselves.  In  America  it  may  be  the  negro 
or  the  Chinaman;  In  England  it  was  the  frog-eating  Frenchman,  or  the 
frugal  Dutchman  who  was  too  mean  to  squander  all  his  wages,  or  the 
barbarian  Russian  who  lived  on  tallow,  and  whose  clothes  cost  him  noth- 
ing, the  skin  of  an  ox  furnishing  a  complete  outfit  for  a  year.  Any 
demagogue  could  rouse  the  enthusiasm  of  these  people  by  denouncing 
Free  Traders,  as  an  unpatriotic  set  who  were  seeking  to  subject  the  noble 
British  workman  to  a  ruinous  competition  with  the  "pauper  workman" 
of  the  continent.  It  was  part  of  the  stock  business  of  Tory  statesmen 
at  every  hustings  in  the  kingdom  to  glorify  the  wisdom  of  that  policy 
which  was  to  make  England  "independent  of  foreigners,"  especially  for 
meat  and  flour.  Even  enlightened  statesmen  like  Peel  and  Gladstone 
did  not  disdain  to  use  this  narrow  argument  in  the  House  of  Commons 
itself. 

In  addition  to  their  insular  prejudices,  the  English  working  class*  - 
believed  in  the  blessings  of  scarcity,  and  the  miseries  of  abundance. 
They  lived  in  fear  of  an  impossible  Dragon  called  "Over-Production." 
They  regarded  machinery  as  their  chief  enemy,  because  it  saved  labor, 
and  filled  shops  and  ware  houses  with  goods.  Ii  was  the  giiin\  coal  fed 
monster,  breathing  smoke  and  ilame,  whose  oll'spring  was  ••overpro- 
duction." They  opposed  railroads  because  of  their  Labor-saving  ten- 
dency, and  many  of  them  could  tell  the  exact  number  of  men  "thrown 
out  of  work'"  bet  ween  London  and  Bristol  i>\  the  Great  Western  Kail- 
way  alone.     There  were  so  many  stage  coachmen  and  guards,  BO  many 


HISTORY  OF  FEEE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  19 

wagoners  whose  busy  teams  moved  the  merchandise  of  the  country,  so 
many  inns  where  the  stages  stopped  for  dinner  or  supper  or  to  change 
horses,  involving  the  employment  of  so  many  ostlers,  cooks,  waiters 
and  other  people.  Then  look  at  the  blacksmiths,  whose  business  it  was 
to  shoe  the  stage  horses  and  the  wagon  horses;  look  at  the  harness-mak- 
ers, whose  business  it  was  to  make  the  harness  for  them.  Think  of  the 
rain  of  the  innkeepers  themselves,  to  say  nothing  of  the  loss  to  the 
farmers  and  stock  raisers,  who  would  no  longer  have  a  market  for  coach 
horses  or  wagon  horses,  or  for  the  oats  to  feed  them.  It  was  in  vain 
to  point  out  the  army  of  workmen  that  the  railroads  would  throw  ' '  into 
work,"  the  comforts  and  conveniences  they  would  multiply  to  all  the 
people;  these  advantages  were  too  abstract  and  remote.  The  injuries 
were  direct,  near  and  palpable. 

In  the  political  philosophy  of  these  people,  all  destruction  of  property 
was  a  blessing,  because  to  replace  the  property  gave  employment  to 
working  men.  The  burning  down  of  a  block  of  buildings  was  a  God- 
send, because  the  houses  had  to  be  rebuilt,  thereby  giving  employment 
to  bricklayers  and  carpenters.  In  1846  a  remarkable  hailstorm  visited 
London.  Every  exposed  pane  of  glass  was  broken  by  the  hailstones. 
This  was  regarded  as  a  merciful  dispensation  of  Providence,  because  it 
made  a  scarcity  of  glass  in  London.  It  was  merely  a  sum  in  simple  ad- 
dition to  show  the  value  of  the  storm.  It  was  very  evident  that  the 
glass  makers  and  glaziers  would  make  a  good  thing  out  of  it,  and  the 
money  they  earned  would  be  spent  for  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of 
life;  the  tailor  and  the  shoemaker  would  get  some  of  it,  and  the  butcher, 
the  baker,  and  the  candlestick  maker.  It  was  useless  to  explain  that 
this  money  was  drawn  from  other  employments  of  industry,  and  that  to 
the  full  value  of  the  glass  destroyed  it  was  a  total  loss  to  the  community. 
This,  too,  was  abstract;  it  was  like  complex  fractions  to  scholars  who 
were  not  yet  out  of  long  division. 

AH  public  improvements  that  lessened  wear  and  tear,  were  bitterly 
opposed  by  those  primitive  political  economists.  The  wooden  pavement 
was  a  dangerous  innovation,  because  if  it  should  be  generally  used  in  a 
great  city  like  London  it  was  easy  to  see  that  the  wear  and  tear  of  horse 
shoes  and  wagon  wheels  would  be  greatly  lessened,  and  blacksmiths 
would  be  thrown  "out  of  work."  A  street  sweeping  machine  invented 
about  this  time  had  to  be  protected  by  the  police,  as  a  mob  of  scaven- 
gers were  determined  to  prevent  its  use.  It  was  claimed  that  the  ma- 
chine could  do  the  work  of  twenty  men.  The  scavengers,  of  course, 
made  their  living  by  dirt;  the  more  dirt,  the  more  work  for  them.  Here 
was  a  machine  that  caused  an  "over-production"  of  cleanliness,  and, 
true  to  their  protectionist  ideas,  they  proceeded  to  destroy  it. 


20  HlSTORr  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

There  is  nothing  surprising  in  all  this;  an  ignorant  people  only  reason 
from  first  appearances,  to  the  immediate  and  visible  result.  To  the  unthink- 
ing working  men  of  England,  the  first  effect  of  a  labor-saving  machine 
was  to  throw  somebody  "out  of  work,"  the  first  effect  of  the  hailstorm 
was  to  throw  somebody  "into  work"  therefore  they  looked  upon  the 
machine  as  an  enemy,  the  storm  as  a  friend.  In  like  manner,  the  first 
effect  of  a  cargo  of  merchandise  imported  from  a  foreign  country  was 
to  make  abundance,  and  to  lessen  the  demand  for  labor  in  that  class  of 
goods,  therefore  they  were  in  favor  of  promoting  scarcity  by  a  high 
protective  tariff,  that  should  compel  those  goods  to  stay  across  the  sea. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  they  would  voluntarily  explore  the 
depths  of  political  science,  and  thus  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  true 
principles  of  social  and  political  economy,  any  more  than  to  expect  them 
to  saw  wood  for  pleasure.  Their  minds  soon  became  tired  when  not 
aided  by  visible  object  lessons,  and  the  men  who  could  appeal  to  their 
mutual  experiences,  had  a  great  advantage  over  the  abstract  reasoner,  no 
matter  how  well  built  his  logical  structure  was.  Often,  in  the  coffee 
houses,  the  club  rooms,  and  other  places  where  working  men  used  to 
meet  and  discuss  the  problems  of  the  English  political  and  social  system, 
the  Protectionist  champion,  confused  and  overwhelmed  by  the  reason- 
ing of  his  Free  Trade  antagonist,  would  extricate  himself  by  an  inge- 
nious recourse  to  the  "over-production"  hob-goblin.  "What  caused  the 
distress,"  he  would  shout,  ','in  the  hard  winter  of  '35?"  "Over-pro- 
duction. "  ' '  What  shut  down  the  Birmingham  forges  in  '30  ? "  "  Over- 
production." "What  sent  the  shoemaker  of  Northampton  on  the  tramp 
in  '38?"  "Over-production,"  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  It 
was  certain  that  among  the  audience  were  some  of  the  fancied  victims 
of  over-production,  and  all  the  rest  were  sympathizers.  It  was  no  use 
to  explain  to  them  that  what  they  called  "over-production"'  was  noth- 
ing but  the  blessing  of  plenty,  which,  if  not  hindered  by  protective  leg- 
islation, would  soon  diffuse  itself  throughout  all  the  land,  sharing  its 
benefits  among  all  the  people,  acting  and  re-acting  upon  every  member 
of  the  community.  To  comprehend  this  required  a  mental  effort,  and 
that  was  labor.  /They  were  i\  yt  ready  to  think  just  then,  and  the  dis- 
comfited Free  Trader  would  fake  his  scat,  leaving  the  victory  to  his  ad- 
versary. The  working  men  of  England  had  literally  to  be  educated  in 
sounder  principles,  to  be  taught  like  children,  from  the  alphabet  of  pol- 
itics upwards,  until  they  were  forced  to  throw  aside  their  prejudices  to 
make  room  for  that  knowledge  which  was  crowding  itself  upon  them. 
"If  you  bring  the  truth  home  to  a  man,"  said  Cobden,  "he  must  em- 
brace it."  To  bring  the  truth  homo  to  the  people  of  England  became 
the  duty  of  the  League.     We  shall  show  how  well  the  work  was  done. 


HISTOEY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  21 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE   STRUGGLE  FOR  FREE   TRADE   IN   ENGLAND. 

The  working  people  of  England  were  divided  into  two  classes,  the 
city  operatives  and  the  rural  population.  They  differed  from  each  other 
in  dress,  in  manners,  and  in  personal  appearance.  The  city  workmen 
was  quick  of  movement,  and  of  great  mental  activity,  the  farm  laborer 
was  heavy,  dull  and  slow.  Although  the  corn  laws  were  made  for  the 
"protection"  of  agricultural  industry,  the  tiller  of  the  soil  was  over- 
worked and  underpaid.  His  life  was  passed  in  abject  poverty.  He  had 
no  more  hope  than  the  team  he  drove,  tie  was  still,  in  fact— though 
not  in  law — a  serf;  and  he  went  with  the  land.  Whoever  bought  that, 
bought,  him.  Tn  1843,  the  traveler  in  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire, 
meeting  a  rustic  with  a  drove  of  hogs  in  front  of  him,  looked  for  the 
brass  collar  round  his  neck,  expecting  to  read  upon  it  the  old  familiar 
legend  preserved  by  Scott, — "Gurth,  the  son  of  Beowolf,  is  the  born 
thrall  of  Cedric  of  Rotherwood. "  The  brass  collar  was  not  there,  but 
the  swineherd  was  as  much  a  "thrall"  as  was  his  ancestor  in  the  days 
of  Wilfred  of  Ivanhoe. 

Less  than  sixty  miles  from  London,  and  within  hearing  of  the  bells 
of  Cambridge,  the  rough-shod  clown  thrashed  his  master's  grain  with  a 
flail,  as  his  forefathers  did  in  the  days  of  Alfred.  He  knew  no  more 
than  they;  and  his  dialect  was  very  much  like  theirs.  Of  the  politics 
of  England,  he  knew  about  as  much  as  of  the  politics  of  Japan.  Al- 
though great  in  numbers,  the  agricultural  laborers  contributed  literally 
nothing  to  that  public  opinion,  which  is  so  important  an  element  in  the 
government  of  England. 

It  was  different  with  the  working  people  in  the  towns.  They  were 
restless,  ambitious  and  discontented.  They  mingled  much  together,  and 
they  discussed  social  problems.  They  formed  clubs,  societies  and  trades- 
unions.  They  attended  political  meetings,  and  debating  clubs,  they 
read  a  great  deal,  and  they  could  furnish  more  stump  orators  to  the 
hundred  men,  than  even  we  can  furnish  in  America.  There  was  always 
a  speaker  on  hand  and  an  audience.  It  was  therefore  in  the  towns  that 
the  principal  work  of  the  League  was  done. 

At  first  the  League  met  with  opposition  even  in  the  towns,  and  its 
meetings  were  often  interrupted,  and  sometimes  broken  up.  The  Char- 
ists  insisted  that  a  radical  reform  of  the  government  itself  should  be  at- 
tempted before  economic  changes.  When  universal  suffrage  and  a  free 
ballot  were  obtained,  then  would  be  time  enough  to  repeal  the  corn  laws; 
and  they  demanded  that  the  League  should  unite  with  them.  Besides, 
the  jealousy  of  foreign  competition  was  not  easily  removed,  and  there 


22  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

was  a  prevalent  suspicion  that  the  League  was  to  lower  the  wages  of  the 
workingmen. 

There  was  but  one  way  to  reach  the  minds  of  these  people,  and  that 
way  was  taken  by  the  League.  It  was  hard  work  to  teach  them  the  ab- 
stract principles  of  Political  Economy,  or  to  show  them  the  ultimate  ad- 
vantages of  Free  Trade.  The  surest  way  to  reach  them  was  by  the  con- 
crete argument  of  a  big  loaf  of  bread  for  a  small  sum  of  mone3r.  A  big 
loaf  was  an  object  lesson  they  could  easily  understand,  and  when  thor- 
oughly learned,  it  made  even  abstract  lessons  easy.  It  was  shown  to 
them  that  the  laws  for  the  "protection  of  native  industry,"  actually  ex- 
cluded from  England  shiploads  of  cheap  flour,  and  meal,  and  meat,  that 
wanted  to  come  in;  that  thereby  scarcity  was  created  by  force  of  law, 
and  the  obvious  and  intended  effect  of  the  scarcity  was  to  increase  the 
price  of  bread.  This  argument  at  last  took  fast  hold  of  all  the  people 
in  the  towns,  and  although  they  still  clung  to  their  sentimental  politics, 
and  demanded  radical  measures  of  parliamentary  reform,  a  majority  of 
them  became  disciples  and  adherents  of  the  League. 

The  Free  Traders  acted  wisely  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  struggle 
by  refusing  to  complicate  their  plans  by  any  alliance  with  either  of  "the 
two  great  parties  "  inside  Parliament,  or  with  the  third  great  party,  the 
unrepresented  Charists  outside.  They  kept  in  view  the  one  great  ob- 
ject, the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  and  directed  all  their  energies  to  that. 

Between  1839  and  1844,  the  League  had  distributed  nine  millions  of 
tracts  among  the  people,  and  had  furnished  a  Free  Trade  library  to  every 
voter  in  the  kingdom.     This  was  Cobden's  way  of  "bringing  Hie  truth 
home  to  a  man."     It  cost  a  great  deal  of  money,  but  the  League  had 
plenty.     Cobden,  Bright,  and  scores  of  orators  of  lesser  note,  were  con 
stantly  "on  the  stump."    Every  part  of  England  was  canvassed,  not 
the  manufacturing  towns  alone,  but  even  the  rural  districts.     In  1842 
Cobden  and  Bright  held  meetings  in  many  parts  of  Scotland,  and  thc\ 
had  little  trouble  in  convincing  the  people  of  that  country  thai  the  pro- 
tective S3^stem  was  injurious  to  every  business  and  every  industry  there. 
Mr.  Bright  confessed  that  the  people  of  Scotland  were  much  more  intel- 
ligent than  the  people  of  England,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  land- 
lords and  some  of  the  great  monopolists,  they  were  nearly  all  Free 
Traders. 

By  the  Autumn  of  1843  the  Free  Trade  agitation  had  reached  im- 
mense proportions,  and  the  Protectionists  had  almost  ceased  to  contend 
against  it  in  argument.  Timid  people  now  pretended  to  I'eel  alarmed  at 
its  dimensions.  They  believed  in  the  principle,  hut  thought  the  League 
was  carrying  things  too  far.  It  was  shaking  society  too  much.  The 
League  and  its  leaders  were  coarsely  assailed  by  the  Times  and  the  Jt  - 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  23 

views,  and  some  of  the  Tory  papers  called  upon  the  Government  to  sup- 
press it,  as  a  seditious  and  treasonable  conspiracy.  Its  answers  to  all 
this  denunciation  was  redoubled  activity  on  the  part  of  the  League. 
Meetings  were  held  in  the  agricultural  districts,  right  among  the  farm- 
ers, and  Free  Trade  resolutions  carried.  This  was  the  most  disheartening 
fact  of  all.  The  Tory  papers  bitterly  denounced  their  own  men,  because 
they  had  not  the  courage  to  meet  Cobden  and  Bright  in  argument,  and 
when  they  did  meet  them,  confessed  themselves  defeated  by  Free  Trade 
fallacies  that  could  easily  be  answered. 

London  was  roused  at  last.  The  great  halls  were  found  utterly  insuf- 
ficient for  the  Free  Trade  meetings.  They  wouldn't  hold  a  quarter  of  the 
multitudes  that  flocked  to  hear  the  Free  Trade  orators,  so  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  was  engaged  for  the  purpose.  Petitions  to  Parliament  asking 
for  Free  Trade  were  displayed  at  the  street  corners,  and  signed  by  tens 
of  thousands  of  people.  To  emphasize  the  struggle,  a  vacancy  in  Par- 
liament for  the  City  of  London  occurred  in  the  fall  of  1843.  After  a 
severe  contest  Mr.  Pattison,  the  Free  Trade  candidate,  was  elected  over 
the  Toiy  candidate,  Mr.  Baring,  a  nephew  of  Lord  Ashburton,  and  a 
man  of  great  wealth  and  personal  popularity.  This  was  an  omen  of  furth- 
er disaster  to  the  Protectionists;  and  although  the  physical  force  of 
their  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  still  remained  intact,  its  moral 
vigor  was  visibly  crumbling  under  the  pressure  of  the  League. 

If  the  votes  in  Parliament  were  not  a  just  barometer  to  record  the 
pressure  of  the  League  upon  the  public  councils,  the  debates,  at  least, 
furnished  an  accurate  standard  by  which  that  pressure  could  be  meas- 
ured. In  the  month  of  February,  1844,  the  Queen  herself  went  down 
to  the  House  of  Lords,  and  opened  Parliament.  Her  speech  contained 
this  paragraph: 

"I  congratulate  you  on  the  improved  condition  of  several  branches  of 
the  trade  and  manufactures  of  the  country.  I  trust  that  the  increased 
demand  for  labor  has  relieved,  in  a  corresponding  degree,  many  classes 
of  my  faithful  subjects  from  sufferings  and  privations,  which,  at  former 
periods  I  have  had  occasion  to  deplore." 

As  Sir  Kobert  Peel  walked  down  to  the  House  of  Commons  to  meet 
the  Parliament  at  the  opening  of  the  sessien  of  1844,  it  was  noticed 
that  his  eye  was  clear  and  bright,  his  step  elastic,  his  bearing  proud; 
and  the  haggard  look  which  sat  upon  his  face  at  the  previous  session  was 
gone.  His  manner  plainly  told  that  he  was  not  afraid  of  Bright  or 
Cobden  now.  He  was  fortified  with  a  weapon  of  defense  against  them, 
which,  curiously  enough,  they  themselves  had  furnished  him.  The 
country  was  prosperous,  as  he  had  proudly  proclaimed  in  the  speeeh 
from  the  throne.     Less  than  two  years  had  gone  since  he  had  yielded  to 


24  HISTORY  OF  FEEE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

the  League  a  slight  experimental  modification  of  the  tariff,  and  the  suc- 
cess of  the  experiment  had  been  greater  than  even  the  Free  Traders  had 
dared  to  prophesy.  The  reduction  of  import  duties  had  been  followed 
by  an  increased  revenue  from  imports.  The  modification  of  the  corn 
laws,  slight  as  it  was,  and  a  good  harvest  had  made  bread  cheaper,  and 
to  the  utter  confounding  of  the  protectionists,  cheaper  bread  had  been 
accompanied  by  higher  wages.  A  small  abatement  of  the  protective 
system  had  been  followed  by  increased  manufacturing  activity,  capital 
had  come  forth  from  its  hiding  places,  and  was  invested  in  forming,  in 
trade,  and  in  manufactures,  labor  was  in  demand,  and  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter could  say,  and  justly  too,  "If  Cobden  declared  last  year  that  I  was 
individually  responsible  for  the  distress  of  the  country,  he  must,  this 
year,  give  me  the  credit  for  its  prosperity." 

When  we  speak  here  of  prosperity,  it  must  be  understood  that  we 
use  the  term  in  a  comparative  sense  only.  There  was  a  great  amount  of 
poverty  yet  in  the  country,  and  hunger  and  misery  everywhere,  but  as 
compared  with  the  previous  year  the  improvement  was  veiy  great. 
Strangely  enough,  the  success  of  the  slight  advance  toward  Free  Trade, 
made  by  Peel  in  the  tariff  of  1842,  instead  of  being  an  encouragement 
to  proceed  further  in  the  same  direction,  was  given  as  a  reason  why  he 
should  stop.  Help  us  to  let  well  enough  alone  was  now  the  appeal  of 
the  Minister  to  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  country.  All  the  as- 
saults of  Cobden  were  parried  by  Peel  with  the  Free  Trade  weapon  he 
had  borrowed  from  the  League  in  184-2.  By  means  of  this,  he  said:  "I 
have  improved  the  condition  of  the  country,  let  us  be  content." 

The  country  recognized  that  the  "better  times"  were  due  to  the  labors 
of  the  League,  but  was  not  generous  enough  to  say  so.  The  action  oi 
the  high-toned  so-called  liberal  newspapers  was  shuffling  and  insincere. 
One  of  them,  of  great  respectability  and  immense  circulation,  speaking 
joyfully  of  the  Queen's  speech,  and  in  congratulations  to  the  country, 
said:  "We  express  no  opinion  upon  the  effect  of  the  speech  upon  the 
present  Corn  Law  agitation — the  League  does  not  want  inure  vigorous 
opponents  or  more  vigorous  support  than  are  engaged  for  or  against  it 
at  the  present  crisis."  As  an  excuse  for  not  supporting  the  League,  it 
pretended  that  the  League  was  strong  enough  already. 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  any  further  who  was  entitled  to  the  credit 
of  it,  one  thing  is  certain,  the  improved  condition  of  the  country  gave 
the  Ministers  a  firmer  grip  of  the  government,  and  when  Mr.  Hume 
and  Lord  John  Russell  both  cor.  plained  that  no  reference  to  the  Corn 
Laws  was  made  in  the  Queen's  speech,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  feeling  the  full 
strength  of  his  position,  gave  positive  notice  that  no  alteration  would  be 
made  in  the  Corn  Laws.     Old  Hume,  however,  nothing  daunted,  moved 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  25 

as  an  amendment  to  the  address  in  answer  to  the  royal  speech,  "that 
the  provision  laws  should  be  considered  and  dealt  with."  He  was  over- 
whehned  by  a  majority  of  no  less  than  185  votes. 

Early  in  the  session,  Mr.  Cobden  gave  notice  of  a  motion  for  a  com- 
mittee to  enquire  into  the  effects  of  import  duties  on  tenant  farmers,  and 
farm  laborers.  This  was  carrying  the  war  into  Africa.  The  majority 
in  Parliament  had  been  contending  that  those  import  duties  were  imposed 
for  the  "protection"  of  those  very  classes  whose  condition  Mr.  Cobden 
proposed  to  enquire  into.  They  dared  not  grant  the  motion,  for  they 
well  knew  that  if  they  did,  Cobden  would  bring  a  hatful  of  facts,  to 
demonstrate  that  every  year  the  tenant  farmer  was  sinking  deeper  and 
deeper  into  debt,  and  that  the  farm  laborer  was  shivering  on  the  very 
verge  of  starvation.  Mr.  Gladstone  commanded  the  Protectionist 
forces  that  night,  and  he  defeated  Cobden  by  the  stubborn  majority  of 
224  to  133. 

The  moral  power  of  the  League  in  Parliament,  was  shown  in  the 
June  debate  on  the  amended  motion  of  Mr.  Villiers  for  a  total  repeal  of 
the  Corn  Laws,  and  the  physical  power  of  the  administration  was  shown 
in  the  vote  upon  that  motion.     It  was  as  folloAvs: 

"That  it  is  in  evidence  before  this  House  that  a  large  proportion  of 
her  Majesty's  subjects  are  insufficiently  provided  with  the  first  necessaries 
of  life;  that  nevertheless,  a  Corn  Law  is  in  force  which  restricts  the 
supply  of  food,  and  thereby  lessens  its  abundance ;  that  any  such  restric- 
tion is  indefensible  in  principle,  injurious  in  operation,  and  ought  to  be 
abolished." 

To  this  motion  Mr.  Ferrand  offered  the  following  amendment: 

"That  it  is  in  evidence  before  this  House  that  a  large  proportion  of 
her  Majesty's  subjects  are  insufficiently  provided  with  the  first  neces- 
saries of  life;  that  although  a  Corn  Law  is  in  force  which  protects  the 
supply  of  food  produced  by  British  capital  and  native  industry,  and 
thereby  increases  its  abundance,  whilst  it  lessens  competition  in  the 
markets  of  labor,  nevertheless  machinery  has  for  many  years  lessened 
among  the  working  classes,  the  means  of  purchasing  the  same,  and  that 
such  Corn  Law  having  for  its  object  the  protection  of  British  capital 
and  the  encouragement  of  native  labor  ought  not  to  be  abolished." 

This  amendment  is  now  looked  upon  in  England  with  the  same  curi- 
osity that  we  gaze  upon  the  Plesiosaurus,  or  some  other  skeleton  from 
the  antedeluvian  world;  and  we  exhume  it  just  to  show  what  fantastic 
doctrines  British  statesmen  and  members  of  Parliament  believed  in  less 
than  forty  years  ago;  and  the  amazing  fact  remains,  that  every  bit  of 
this  crazy  amendment,  except  the  childish  complaint  against  machinery, 
is  sound  Protectionist  doctrine  in  the  United  States  to-day,  the  obvious 


26  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

untruth  that  the  exclusion  of  wheat,  nails,  or  cloth  from  a  country,  in- 
creases the  abundance  within  that  country  of  wheat,  nails,  and  cloth,  is 
as  vehemently  asserted  by  the  Protectionist  party  in  America  now,  as  it 
was  by  Mr.  Ferrand  in  the  English  Parliament  thirty-eight  years  ago. 
How  familiar  to  us  also  is  that  hollow  claptrap,  "protection  of  British 
capital,  and  the  encouragement  of  native  labor." 

It  was  significant  of  the  power  of  the  League,  that  Mr.  Ferrand's 
amendment  was  treated  with  silent  derision.  There  was  not  a  man  even 
on  the  Tory  benches  who  was  willing  to  stultify  himself  by  the  advo- 
cacy of  any  such  nonsense.  The  debate  was  notable  for  several  reasons. 
During  its  progress  the  Whigs  climbed  up  on  the  fence,  and  they  stayed 
there  for  a  year,  Lord  John  Russell  declaring,  as  he  did  so,  that  he 
could  not  vote  to  remove  all  protection,  and  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the 
existing  law;  he  wished  a  compromise  could  be  arrived  at.  Mr.  Miles, 
a  rather  talkative  Tory,  called  upon  the  Country  Gentlemen  to  listen  to 
no  compromise,  but  to  maintain  the  law  as  it  stood. 

This  debate  revealed  a  more  important  fact,  which  was,  that  the  poli- 
tics of  the  country  was  no  longer  a  contest  for  office  between  the  Tories 
on  one  side  and  the  Whigs  on  the  other,  but  was  a  life  and  death  strug- 
gle between  the  Protectionists  majority  inside  Parliament,  and  the 
League  outside.  It  was  significant  that  the  Tories,  instead  of  directing 
their  arguments  to  the  question  before  the  House,  spent  their  time  in 
criticising  the  League  and  denouncing  its  methods. 

Mr.  Milner  Gibson  defended  the  League.  That  there  might  be  no 
misunderstanding  of  its  objects  he  declared  that  it  sought  not  only  Free 
Trade  in  corn,  but  in  everything.  He  quoted  from  Paley,  that  restraint 
of  trade  is  an  evil  per  se,  and  that  the  burden  of  the  argument  in  each 
particular  case  lies  on  him  by  whom  the  restraint  is  defended.  Mr.  Cob- 
den  having  endorsed  and  strengthened  the  broad  platform  just  laid  down 
by  Mr.  Gibson,  reminded  the  House  that  it  was  not  the  League  that  was 
on  trial,  but  the  law. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  then  rose  to  answer  Cobden.  He  accepted  the  broad 
issue  presented  by  Milner  Gibson,  and  agreed  that  the  repeal  of  the  pro 
tective  duties  upon  corn  meant  the  withdrawal  of  protection  from  man- 
ufactures and  from  shipping,  too.  This,  he  said,  would  he  productive 
of  disaster  to  the  country.  Amid  uproarious  cheering  from  the  "coun- 
try gentlemen,"  he  declared  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  government 
to  adhere  to  the  present  law.  There  was  a  fatal  weakness  in  his  argu- 
ment, and  he  gave  away  his  party  and  his  ease  together  w  lieu  head 
mittcd  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Yilliers  was  "correct  in  the  abstract,  and 
justified  by  philosophical  considerations." 

The  Tories  did  not  worry  themselves  over  the  moral  condemnation  of 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  27 

"Protection"  contained  in  these  admissions;  all  they  cared  about  was 
the  promise  of  the  Prime  Minister  that  monopoly  should  not  be  dis- 
turbed, They  were  so  exultant  that  when  Mr.  Bright  rose  to  address 
the  House,  they  listened  to  him  with  much  impatience  and  finally 
coughed  him  down.  Mr.  Villiers,  in  closing  the  debate  made  a  remark- 
able prediction.  He  told  the  "country  gentlemen"  who  cheered  the 
Prime  Minister  so  vigorously  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  made  the  same 
sort  of  speech  to  them  in  1839,  and  had  afterwards  thrown  them  over- 
board. The  same  thing  would  happen  again.  This  prophecy  was  lit- 
erally fullfilled  within  two  years.  The  motion  was  lost  by  328  against 
124,  a  stolid  majority  of  201,  which  disheartened  even  Cobden,  whose 
high  spirits  had  never  failed  him  since  the  organization  of  the  League. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  at  the  close  of  the  great  debate  of  1844,  the 
dawn  of  the  summer  day  was  shining  through  the  windows  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  It  was  greeted  by  the  boisterous  cheers  of  the  Protec- 
tionist majority,  stimulated  not  only  by  victory,  but  by  wine.  Those 
cheers  smote  the  very  heart  of  Cobden,  and  he  sat  there  absolutely 
stunned  by  the  force  of  the  blow.  Five  years  of  incessant  labor,  night 
and  day,  had  told  heavily  upon  him,  and  mind  and  body  needed  rest 
together.  There  was  another  man  there,  however,  who  was  smitten 
harder  than  Cobden,  upon  whose  conscience  this  noisy  cheering  struck 
with  a  mocking  sound.  This  was  the  great  Minister  who  had  led  the 
exultant  majority  to  victory.  He,  and  he  alone,  heard  in  those  cheers 
the  knell  of  the  noisy  monopoly  that  was  making  them.  He  knew  that 
the  flushed  men  he  commanded  last  night  were  utterly  besotted  and  sel- 
fish, that  the  wants  of  the  people  were  nothing  to  them,  so  that  they 
could  enjoy  the  unjust  profits  of  "Protection."  He  knew  that  if  they 
had  constituted  the  "landed  interest  "in  Canaan  at  the  time  of  the 
dearth,  they  would  have  demanded  a  high  protective  tariff  against  the 
"pauper"  corn  of  Egypt,  and  the  rich  alluvium  of  the  Nile.  In  the 
argument  he  made  for  them,  he  knew  that  he  was  wrong.  The  dispu- 
tant who  concedes  that  the  position  of  his  adversary  is  ''correct  in  the 
abstract,  and  justified  by  philosophical  considerations,"  knows  that  he 
himself  is  in  a  false  position;  and  if  he  is  a  conscientious  man  it  will 
not  take  him  long  to  reach  the  platform  where  his  adversary  stands. 

"While  Cobden  sat  in  dismay  gazing  at  the  dense  majority  of  204,  and 
believing  it  to  be  solid,  Peel  knew  that  it  was  hollow;  while  Cobden 
was  fearing  that  the  League  had  failed,  Peel  knew  that  it  had  succeeded; 
that  it  was  fast  becoming  irresistible,  and  that  ere  long  it  would  conquer 
all  opposition,  that  not  even  the  British  monarchy  could  safely  stand  in 


28  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  TN  ENGLAND. 

its  way.  We  all  know  now  what  nobody  knew  then,  that  the  only  ar- 
guments that  made  any  impression  upon  Peel  in  that  debate  were  not 
those  of  any  member  of  his  own  party,  not  those  of  Lord  John  Eussell 
or  any  of  the  Whigs,  but  only  those  of  Cobden,  Villiers,  Bright  and 
Gibson.  In  this  hour  of  its  greatest  triumph,  the  Tory  chieftain  knew 
that  the  end  of  "Protection"  was  at  hand. 

Mr.  Morley  in  his  "Life  of  Cobden,"  describes  the  struggle  made  by 
the  Free  Traders  that  night  as  a  "  hollo av  performance."  We  cannot 
think  so.  We  fear  the  despondency  of  Cobden  has  re-acted  upon  his 
biographer.  The  fact  that  the  Tories  wandered  from  the  question  to 
attack  the  League,  is  proof  that  they  were  over-matched  in  argument, 
and  surely  a  "hollow  performance"  would  not  make  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter concede  that  his  opponents  had  on  their  side  all  the  philosophy  of  the 
question.  Milner  Gibson  was  very  strong  that  night.  He  planted  him- 
self on  the  solid  rock  of  the  Creator's  grand  design  and  man's  adaptation 
to  it.  He  declared  that  to  help  one  another,  to  be  friends  with  one  an- 
other, and  to  trade  with  one  another,  is  the  very  law  of  human  civiliza- 
tion; and  he  demanded  that  those  who  imposed  restraints  upon  trade, 
should  give  good  reasons  why. 

How  did  the  Tories  answer  him?  Why,  they  said  that  they  had  had 
Protection  so  long  that  they  could  not  do  without  it  now;  thus  coolly 
violating  a  maxim  of  the  law,  that  no  man  shall  take  advantage  of  his 
own  wrong;  in  other  words,  they  contended  that  a  wrong  that  had  existed 
for  a  long  time,  became  at  last  a  right. 

How  did  Peel  answer*  him?  By  advancing  the  American  idea  that 
"Protection"  is  a  system  in  which  all  parties  are  interested;  that  it  had 
become  woven  into  the  political  organization  of  the  country,  and  that  it 
gave  to  all  industries  an  equal  and  mutual  assistance;  that  the  agricultur- 
ists were  interested  in  "Protection"  to  manufactures,  that  manufactur- 
ers were  interested  in  "Protection"  to  agriculture,  and  both  of  them 
were  interested  in  "Protection"  to  shipping  and  commerce;  that  all 
must  stand  or  fall  together,  and  that  although  the  motion  was  only 
aimed  at  corn,  yet  if  protection  was  withdrawn  from  that,  it  must 
be  withdrawn  from  everything  else,  which  would  be  disastrous  to  the 
country.  But  Mr.  Cobden  showed  in  that  debate  that  there  cannot  be 
any  such  thing  as,  universal  protection,  because  if  every  interest  in  a 
community  is  protected  equally  then  nobody  is  protected  at  all.  Pro- 
tection being  a  tax  for  the  benefit  of  certain  trades  or  occupation,  some- 
body has  to  pay  it.  To  form  ourselves  into  a  circle  and  each  man 
take  a  tax  from  the  pocket  of  his  neighbor  on  the  rigid,  and  drop  it  into 
the  pocket  of  his  neighbor  on  the  left,  does  no  good,  because  when  the 
itarting  place  is  reached,  nobody  has  made  anything  at  all. 


or 

HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  29 

Shortly  after  this  debate  Parliament  adjourned  and  did  not  meet  again 
until  February,  1845.  The  temperament  of  Cobden  was  not  of  a  char- 
acter to  remain  despondent  long,  and  besides,  there  was  no  occasion  for 
discouragement.  The  confession  of  the  Prime  Minister  that  Free  Trade 
principles  were  right  in  the  abstract,  had  a  great  effect  outside  the  walls 
of  Parliament.  Most  men  thought  if  that  were  so  they  might  possibly 
be  right  in  the  concrete  also.  During  the  recess  there  were  great  ac- 
cessions to  the  League.  To  some  people  who  looked  only  on  the  sur- 
face of  affairs,  it  seemed  as  if  there  was  a  lull  in  the  Corn  Law  agita- 
tion, and  that  the  better  times  had  deprived  the  League  of  its  strength. 
But  the  League  might  well  claim,  and  did  claim,  that  the  improved  con- 
dition of  the  country  was  due  to  the  modification  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem in  the  tariff  of  1842,  and  that  if  the  country  should  discard  "Pro- 
tection" altogether,  the  good  times  would  be  better  still. 

Lord  Beaconsfield  in  his  "Life  of  Bentinck,"  expresses  the  opinion 
that  the  improved  condition  of  the  country  in  1845  had  rendered  the 
League  powerless  to  disturb  the  administration,  and  that  Sir  Robert 
Peel  might  have  defied  it,  if  the  bad  harvest  had  not  come,  and  that  his 
Government  could  have  stood  against  even  "the  persuasive  ingenuity 
of  Cobden."  But  this  is  a  superficial  view  of  the  matter,  and  is  the 
opinion  of  the  most  spiteful  Protectionist  then  in  Parliament,  every  one 
of  whose  predictions  was  falsified  by  the  event.  The  agitation  was  not 
so  boisterous  perhaps  upon  the  surface,  but  it  was  deeper  down.  The 
crowded  meetings  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre  showed  that  the  League 
was  as  formidable  as  ever,  and  a  Ladies'  Bazaar,  held  there  in  the  spring 
of  1845  netted  over  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  the  funds  of  the 
League.  But  the  most  convincing  proof  of  all  was  furnished  by  Sir 
Robert  Peel  himself,  as  soon  as  parliament  convened. 

When  the  Queen  opened  Parliament  in  February,  1845,  she  said: 
"Increased  activity  pervades  almost  every  branch  of  manufacture. 
Trade  and  commerce  have  been  extended  at  home  and  abroad.  Scarcely 
had  the  address  been  moved  and  seconded,  when  up  rose  the  Duke  of 
Richmond,  who  began  to  whine  like  a  mendicant  about  the  distress  of 
the  agricultural  classes.  These  were  the  very  classes  that  had  been 
' '  protected "  by  the  onerous  taxation  of  other  classes  for  many  years, 
and  now  they  came  to  Parliament  begging  for  relief,  This  Duke  who 
was  passing  the  hat  round  for  them  was  the  owner  of  tens  of  thousands 
of  acres  of  the  finest  land  in  England  and  Scotland.  He  had  a  palace 
in  the  loveliest  and  most  fertile  part  of  England,  and  it  took  ten  miles 
of  wall  to  enclose  his  pleasure  ground,  the  park  around  his  mansion. 
To  keep  up  the  style  and  extravagance  of  a  prince,  he  impoverished 
hundreds  of  his  tenants,  and  then  asked  Parliament  to  relieve  them,  at 
some  other  people's  cost. 


30  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

In  the  debate  on  the  address  in  the  House  of  Commons,  some  of  the 
"landed  gentry,"  there  talked  as  the  Duke  of  Kiehmond  had  talked  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  which  drew  from  Lord  John  Russell  the  signifi- 
cant remark  that  "protection"  was  the  bane  of  agriculture  rather  than 
its  support."  This  caused  Mr.  Miles  to  ask  him  why,  if  he  thought  so, 
he  had  proposed  a  fixed  duty  on  corn.  ' '  Had  he  found  it  convenient 
to  alter  his  views,  and  ally  himself  with  the  League?"  This  was  a  fail- 
hit,  for  his  Lordship  was  not  yet  ready  to  join  the  League. 

It  is  not  certain  that  Lord  John  Russell  was  contemplating  any  Free 
Trade  movement,  but  it  is  nearly  certain  that  Peel  suspected  him  and 
determined  to  anticipate  him,  for  as  soon  as  Parliament  assembled  he 
announced,  contrary  to  all  precedent,  that  he  would  not  wait  till  April 
or  May  to  make  his  financial  statement,  but  would  present  it  to  the 
House  the  next  week.  This  of  course  compelled  Lord  John  Russell 
to  postpone  his  contemplated  movement,  whatever  it  might  be. 

The  Tories  mustered  strong  on  Friday  night  to  encourage  their  great 
leader,  as  he  unfolded  to  the  country  his  financial  plans.  To  their 
amazement  and  dismay  he  opened  a  Free  Trade  budget.  To  be  sure  he 
had  not  touched  the  Corn  Laws,  but  it  was  feared  that  he  had  passed 
sentence  upon  them,  and  he  had  only  reprieved  them  for  a  time.  He 
proposed  to  strike  the  protective  duty  from  no  less  than  four  hundred 
and  thirty  articles  then  on  the  Tariff  list,  and  this  he  had  the  coolness 
to  tell  his  Protectionist  followers,  "must  be  a  great  advantage  to  com- 
merce." The  suicidal  duties  on  raw  materials  went  oft' with  one  stroke 
of  the  pen;  a  fine  example  of  financial  wisdom,  well  worthy  the  study 
of  American  statesmen. 

This  was  not  all.  Every  rag  of  the  protective  export  duties  was  dis- 
carded, even  the  venerable  export  duty  on  coal,  which  had  stood  firm 
for  centuries,  and  which  even  John  Stuart  Mill  thought  might  wisely  be 
retained.  In  the  ignorant  ages  of  protective  philosophy,  it  was  consi<  Inc.  1 
dangerous  for  British  manufacturers  to  sell  coal  to  the  Germans  or  the 
French,  lest  they  should  use  it  in  manufacturing  articles  that  might 
compete  in  foreign  markets  with  those  of  Great  Britain.  But  the  tax 
was  abolished  at  last,  and  by  a  Protectionist  ministery.  There  was 
great  chcerino;  when  Sir  Robert  Peel  sat  down,  hut  it  came  not  from  hi- 
own  party,  but  from  the  Free  Trade  crowd  who  occupied  the  benches 
opposite.  The  "country  gentlemen,"  the  "squires,"  who  cheered 
themselves  into  apoplexy  Last  June,  now  sat  silent  and  enraged;  and 
there  were  signs  of  mutiny. 

It  broke  out  in  the  early  days  of  March.  Mr.  Miles  in  :i  debate  on 
the  agricultural  distress,  distinctly  told  his  chief  that  if  the  Tories  had 
known  what  was  coming  they  would   have  beaten  him  in  1M'_\  and   Mr. 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  31 

Disraeli  denounced  the  administration  as  an  "organized  hypocrisy." 
In  this  debate  Sir  Robert  Peel  made  a  very  careful  speech.  He  thought 
extreme  protection  wrong  and  defended  moderate  protection  as  ' '  neces- 
sary, not  on  principles  of  commercial  policy,  but  as  essential  to  a  state 
of  things  where  great  interests  had  grown  up,  and  whose  injury  would 
be  that  of  the  community  at  large." 

The  student  of  American  politics  may  wisely  study  this  apology  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel.  He  will  hear  it  often  in  the  "impending  conflict"  in 
America,  between  Protection  and  Free  Trade.  Sir  Robert  Peel  him- 
self stigmatized  his  own  reasoning  as  unsound  ' '  on  principles  of  com- 
mercial policy, "  but  "great  interests  had  grown  up"  under  the  stimu- 
lus of  Protection,  and  if  the  artificial  prop  which  supported  those  great 
interests  should  be  removed,  they  would  fall  to  the  ground;  and  the 
people  who  were  living  on  them  would  receive  injury.  That  the  with- 
drawal of  ' '  Protection ' '  would  be  an  injury  to  the  protected  classes  Avas 
true,  but  that  it  would  he  an  injury  to  the  community  at  large  was  false. 
The  community  at  large  being  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  a  class,  he  pre- 
tended that  a  removal  of  the  tax  would  be  an  injury,  not  only  to  those 
who  received  it,  but  to  those  who  paid  it.  This  absurdity  is  flippantly 
maintained  by  the  American  Protectionists  even  now. 

This  position  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  is  a  lesson  and  a  warning  to  us.  It 
shows  that  no  matter  under  what  circumstances  of  pretended  urgency, 
"Protection"  maybe  conceded,  the  "protected"  class  is  never  ready 
to  surrender  it.  The  rack-renting  Morrill  tariff  of  1861,  which  Mr. 
Morrill  himself  declared  at  that  time  could  only  be  defended  as  a  "  War 
measure "  by  the  urgency  of  our  situation,  is  now,  sixteen  years  after 
the  war,  impudent  and  rapacious.  Mr.  Morrill  will  not  permit  a  hair 
of  its  head  to  be  injured.  He  is  willing  to  take  it  out  of  politics,  and 
refer  it  to  a  "commission"  of  its  friends.  That  "commission"  will 
tell  the  country  in  the  language  of  Peel,  that  its  preservation  has  be- 
come "essential  to  a  state  of  things  where  great  interests  have  grown 
up,  whose  injury  would  be  that  of  the  community  at  large." 

Late  in  May,  Lord  John  Russell's  plan  was  given  to  the  country.  It 
consisted  of  nine  resolutions  which  the  Whig  leader  presented  to  Par- 
liament, in  a  speech  which  was  easily  and  successfully  answered  by 
Peel.  These  resolutions  were  intended  to  constitute  a  new  platform  for 
the  Whigs.  Had  they  been  proclaimed  before  the  opening  of  Parlia- 
ment they  would  have  been  regarded  as  so  liberal  and  far  advanced  that 

they  might  have  embarrassed  both  the  Tories  and  the  League;  but 
coming  after  Peel's  budget  they  were  of  no  more  interest  than  nine  old 

newspapers.  Like  some  other  political  parties  that  might  be  mentioned, 
the  Whigs  came  limping  along  behind  their  enemies.  Of  the  nine  res- 
olutions, this  history  is  only  concerned  with  two. 


32  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

The  second  resolution  was:  ''That  those  laws  which  impose  duties 
usually  called  protective,  tend  to  impair  the  efficiency  of  labor,  to  re- 
strict the  free  interchange  of  commodities,  and  so  impose  on  the  people 
unnecessary  taxation. " 

It  took  the  League  six  long  years  to  pound  those  principles  into  Lord 
John  Russell.  He  had  adopted  them  at  last,  and  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  in  making  his  confession  to  the  House  of  Commons,  he  man- 
aged to  condense  a  vast  amount  of  economic  truth  into  a  very  few  sen- 
tences. The  wonderful  fact  remains  that  he  was  not  yet  ready  to  apply 
those  principles  to  corn. 

The  third  resolution  was:  "That  the  present  Corn  Law  tends  to 
check  improvements  in  agriculture,  produces  uncertainty  in  all  farming 
speculations,  and  holds  out  to  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  land  pros- 
pects of  special  advantage,  which  it  fails  to  secure." 

And  yet  he  was  not  ready  to  vote  for  a  repeal  of  that  law.  He  merely 
wanted  to  change  the  "  sliding  scale  "  for  a  tixed  duty.  He  confessed 
however,  that  after  all  the  discussion  which  had  taken  place,  "he  could 
not  fairly  and  reasonable  propose  the  eight  shillings  fixed  duty  of  1841." 
He  thought  that  a  duty  of  four,  five  or  six  shillings  would  be  about 
right.  The  League  had  made  him  a  Free  Trader  as  to  everything  but 
corn,  and  as  to  that  it  had  crowded  him  back  from  eight  shillings  a 
quarter  to  six,  or  five,  or  even  four.  Lord  John  Russell  had  the  Whigs 
and  Free  Traders  with  him  on  the  division,  but  was  easily  beaten  by  a 
majority  of  seventy-eight. 

In  June  again  came  on  the  annual  motion  of  Mr.  Villiers  for  a  total 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  The  debate  showed  nothing  remarkable  ex- 
cept the  towering  air  of  superiority  with  which  Sir  Robert  Peel  lectured 
the  pack  behind  him.  With  lordly  patronage  he  told  them  that  although 
he  was  about  to  lead  them  to  victory  once  more,  their  arguments  were 
uusound.  He  formally  repudiated  and  laid  aside  the  mistake  of  the 
Protectionists,  that  dear  commodities  make  high  wages,  and  although 
some  of  his  own  followers  had  proclaimed  the  doctrine  in  that  very  de- 
bate, he  told  them  it  was  not  true.  The  Protectionists  bore  this  lecture 
with  such  patience  as  they  could,  but  when  their  leader  told  them  that 
he  opposed  the  motion,  not  because  it  wasn't  right,  but  because  he  de- 
sired to  make  a  "gradual  approach  to  sound  principles,"  meaning  the 
principles  of  Free  Trade,  they  could  scarce  conceal  their  anger.  To  be 
told,  not  only  that  their  arguments  were  bad,  but  that  their  principles 
were  not  "sound,"  was  more  than  they  could  bear;  however  the  <li\  is. 
ion  was  taken  mechanically,  and  the  Speaker  announced  that  the  noes 
had  it  by  254  to  122.     This  was  the  last  victory  tor  the  Protectionists 


HISTORY    OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  33 

in  England.  Parliament  adjourned  in  August.  When  it  met  again  in 
January,  the  Tory  party  had  been  disintegrated  and  broken  to  pieces 
by  the  League;  the  Protectionists  were  disorganized  and  routed  so  com- 
pletely that  they  were  never  afterwards  known  as  a  party  in  the  politics 
of  Great  Britain. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

And  now  the  time  was  close  at  hand  when  that  boasted  Protective 
system  which  was  to  make  Britain  "independent  of  foreign  countries" 
for  its  food  supply  was  to  be  subjected  to  a  test  it  could  not  stand.  In 
the  summer  of  1845  Cobden  had  ridiculed  that  precarious  commercial 
system  which  was  at  the  mercy  of  a  shower  of  rain.  Three  weeks  rainy 
weather,  he  said,  when  the  wheat  is  ripening,  will  prove  the  danger  of 
leaving  the  industrial  scheme  of  such  a  country  as  England  to  stand  or 
fall  on  the  cast  of  a  die.  He  had  scarcely  ceased  to  speak  when  the 
rainy  weather  came,  and  it  lasted  through  the  harvest  time.  The  crop 
was  short  and  its  quality  was  poor.  In  September  a  horrid  whisper  crept 
through  England.  It  was  that  the  potato  crop  of  Ireland  was  smitten 
with  a  strange  disease.  It  soon  became  certain  that  scarcely  a  field  of 
potatoes  in  Ireland  had  escaped  the  blight. 

In  October  the  reports  grew  worse,  and  men  all  over  England  were 
cursing  between  their  teeth  that  govermental  system  which  had  made 
the  Irish  people  dependent  on  a  wretched  root  for  food.  So  far  from 
being  independent,  the  people  of  the  British  Islands  saw  themelves  in 
the  autumn  of  1845  almost  at  the  mercy  of  other  nations  for  their  com- 
ing winter's  bread. 

The  League  had  now  become  almost  irresistible.  A  large  portion  of 
the  press,  which  had  so  long  held  aloof  from  it,  gave  in. their  adhesion 
not  only  to  its  doctrines,  but  to  its  plans.  It  held  great  meetings  and 
gained  many  converts;  it  caused  petitions  to  be  circulated  throughout 
the  country,  demanding  the  immediate  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  These 
were  signed  by  thousands.  Mr.  O'Connell,  who  had  long  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  League,  sent  fearful  accounts  from  Ireland,  and  demanded 
a  cessation  of  party  conflict  in  the  presence  of  the  calamity  that  was 
impending  over  the  country.  He  called  upon  the  government  to  open 
the  ports  to  the  admission  of  foreign  grain.  Sir  Robert  Peel  felt  the 
fearful  weight  of  his  responsibility,  and  there  were  frequent  meetings 
of  the  Cabinet,  but  the  people  knew  nothing  of  its  discussions,  except 
that  they  were  not  harmonious. 

The  discord  in  the  Cabinet  looked  like  an  opportunity  for  the  Whigs, 
and  they  thought  to  make  party  capital  out  of  it.  Lord  John  Russell 
was  in  Edinburgh  quietly  watching  the  progress  of  events.     He  saw 


34  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

that  there  was  a  division  in  the  Cabinet.  How  wide  it  was  he  did  not 
know,  but  he  thought  that  probably  it  was  wide  enough  to  let  him  pass 
through  it  and  return  once  more  to  power.  All  through  November  the 
political  gloom  grew  deeper,  and  at  last  he  thought  that  his  time  had 
come. 

He  was  member  for  the  City  of  London,  and  on  the  22d  of  Novem- 
ber he  wrote  from  Edinburgh  a  letter  to  his  constituents  on  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country.  It  was  written  in  the  narrow  spirit  or  party,  but 
the  people  did  not  notice  that;  all  they  noticed  was  the  more  important 
fact  that  ho  had  gone  bodily  over  to  the  League,  and  declared  himself 
in  favor  of  Free  Trade.  He  confessed  that  he  had  been  converted  from 
the  errors  of  a  life-time.  "I  used  to  be  of  the  opinion,''  he  said  "thai 
corn  was  an  exception  to  the  general  rules  of  political  economy."  Ob- 
servation and  experience  had  at  last  convinced  him  of  the  expensive 
folly  of  the  whole  protective  system.  He  said,  "Let  us,  then,  unite  to 
put  an  end  to  a  system  which  has  been  proved  to  be  the  blight  of  com- 
merce, the  bane  of  agriculture,  the  source  of  bitter  divisions  among 
classes,  the  cause  of  penury,  fever,  mortality  and  crime  among  the 
people." 

This  letter  meant  that  the  Whigs  had  got  off  the  fence;  and  presently 
they  were  seen  tumbling  over  one  another  in  their  haste  to  join  the 
League.  It  precipitated  the  crisis,  and  broke  up  the  Ministry.  As 
soon  as  it  appeared  Sir  Robert  Peel  called  the  Cabinet  together.  He 
told  his  Ministers  that  he  could  not  any  longer  assume  the  responsibility 
of  continuing  the  Corn  Laws,  he  proposed  to  open  the  ports  by  an  or- 
der in  council,  and  declared  himself  in  favor  of  Free  Trade.  Some  of 
the  younger  Tories  were  willing  to  go  with  Peel,  but  the  Duke  ot  Wel- 
lington, Lord  Stanley  and  some  others  could  not  consent  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  Corn  Laws,  which  in  some  shape  or  other  had  taxed  the 
people  of  England  for  more  than  four  hundred  years.  The  clamor  of 
the  League  could  be  heard  in  the  Council  Chamber,  and  rather  than  en. 
dure  it  any  longer  the  whole  Ministry  resigned.  On  Monday,  the  8th 
of  December,  the  Council  was  held,  on  Tuesday  it  was  whispered  at 
the  clubs  that  the  game  was  up;  and  on  Wednesday  the  resignations 
were  accepted  by  the  Queen. 

Lord  .John  Russell  was  sent  for  to  form  an  administration.  He  ac- 
cepted the  task,  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  "mounting  in  hot  haste," 
and  "hurrying  to  and  fro,"  and  sending  for  this  man  and  tor  that  man. 
After  a  couple  of  weeks  of  fussy  tinkering  with  the  "crisis,"  In-  went 
down  and  lold  the  Queen  that  he  had  failed  in  his  attempt  to  form  a 
Government;   he    confessed    in   the    language  of  ''Punch"    which  was 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  35 

making  fun  of  him  at  the  time,  that  he  wasn't  "big  enough  for  the 
place." 

When  Lord  John  Russell  was  making  up  the  "slate,"  he  offered  the 
greatest  man  in  England,  the  author  of  the  commercial  revolution,  a 
subordinate  position  as  Vice-President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  under  a 
titled  mediocrity,  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  who  was  to  be  President  of  the 
Board.  This  was  a  good  deal  like  offering  Oliver  Cromwell  a  Corporal- 
ship  under  the  Earl  of  Essex.  So  difficult  was  it  for  the  Whig  aristoc- 
racy to  understand  that  the  Democracy  of  England  had  at  last  become  a 
power  in  the  State.     Of  course  Cobden  declined  the  offer. 

It  was  not  to  be  regretted  that  Lord  John  Russell  failed  to  form  a 
Government.  Had  he  succeeded,  he  would  have  subordinated  the 
mighty  question  of  the  hour  to  the  exegencies  of  party.  There  was 
but  one  man  who  was  equal  to  the  occasion,  who  had  the  ability,  the 
scientifie  knowledge,  the  character,  and  the  Parliamentary  following,  to 
carry  England  safely  through.  That  man  was  Peel.  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell advised  the  Queen  to  send  for  him,  and  place  the  Government  in  his 
hands  once  more.  Sir  Robert  resumed  his  office  and  proceeded  to  re- 
construct his  Cabinet.  Most  of  the  old  members  agreed  to  serve  under 
him  aeain.  Anions:  the  new  members  was  Gladstone,  who  had  been 
out  of  office  for  some  time.  Even  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  whose 
Tory  prejudiees  were  so  bitter  and  so  strong,  agreed  to  take  office  under 
Peel  once  more,  and  promised  to  stand  by  him  till  the  fight  was  ended. 
It  is  conclusive  proof  of  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  Peel's  capacity, 
that  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that  he  had  consented  to  resume  his  office, 
the  funds  rose. 

All  this  time  the  League  was  pressing  its  advantage;  it  faltered  not. 
Immense  meetings  were  held  in  London,  Manchester,  and  other  places. 
At  a  great  meeting  in  Dublin,  Mr.  O'Connell  proclaimed  "  every  man 
an  enemy  who  did  not  support  Bright  and  Cobden."  On  the  15th  ol 
December  a  vast  Free  Trade  meeting  was  held  at  Guild  Hall,  the  City 
Hall  of  London,  which  was  presided  over  by  the  Lord  Mayor  himself, 
in  his  robes  of  office.  The  mighty  giants,  Gog  and  Magog,  who  inhab- 
ited Guild  Hall,  and  who  had  guarded  London  ever  since  the  time  of 
the  Saxon  Kings,  were  nearly  shaken  from  their  pedestals  by  the  cheers 
that  went  up  when  Cobden  rose  to  speak.  He  was  in  great  spirits  that 
day,  for  he  knew  that  the  end  was  near. 

Two  days  afterwards  there  was  a  great  meeting  at  Covent  Garden 
Theatre.  Thirty  thousand  tickets  of  admission  were  applied  for.  But 
London  was  excelled  by  Manchester.  At  one  meeting  there,  it  was  re- 
solved to  raise  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  pounds  for  the  League. 


36  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

Twenty-three  men  subscribed  a  thousand  pounds  each,  as  fast  as  the 
secretary  could  write  their  names.  Nothing  could  stand  against  such 
earnest  public  opinion  as  this. 

The  Queen  opened  Parliament  on  the  20th  of  January,  1846.  The 
speech  from  the  throne  foreshadowed  what  was  coming.  The  mover 
and  the  seconder  in  answer  to  the  royal  speech  were  listened  to  with  the 
usual  courtesy,  and  then  "Sir  Devon  the  Bull"  proceeded  to  butt  the 
cars  off  the  track.  The  Duke  of  Richmond  denounced  the  anticipated 
policy  of  the  Government,  and  called  upon  their  lordships  not  to  aban- 
don the  protective  system.  He  told  them  not  to  allow  themselves  to  be 
intimidated  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League. 

The  Duke  of  Richmond,  like  many  others  of  the  English  nobility,  had 
plenty  of  courage,  but  little  wisdom.  He  had  proved  his  courage  at 
Waterloo,  and  carried  a  French  bullet  in  his  lungs  which  he  got  in  that 
battle,  and  he  was  perfectly  willing  to  fight  the  Free  Trade  locomotive. 
Wellington,  his  old  commander,  answered  him.  He  told  him  it  was  no 
use  trying  to  stop  the  train;  that  the  Corn  Laws  were  sentenced,  and 
that  the  sentence  would  be  executed  in  a  few  days.  Still  the  Duke 
fought  desperately,  until  old  Wellington  thought  like  Richard,  that 
there  must  be  at  least  "six  Richmonds  in  the  field." 

Sir  Robert  Peel  made  a  short  explanation  that  same  night  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  In  the  course  of  it  he  said  that  his  opinions  on  the  Pro- 
tective Tariff  had  undergone  a  change.  He  was  yielding  to  the  force 
of  argument  and  more  enlarged  experience.  He  had  closely  watched 
the  operation  of  Protective  duties  during  the  past  four  or  five  years, 
and  was  now  convinced  that  the  arguments  in  favor  of  their  maintenance 
were  no  longer  tenable.  He  was  convinced  thai  low  wages  were  not  the 
result  of  low  prices  for  food.  "Since  the  year  1842,"  he  said  "when 
the  first  invasion  was  made  on  the  principle  of  Protection,  the, exports 
had  risen  from  forty-two  millions  of  pounds  to  forty-seven  millions." 
The  results  of  the  revenue  presented  a  similar  picture.  It  was  then 
agreed  that  on  the  next  Tuesday  the  Minister  should  present  his  new 
commercial  plans.  Peel's  was  a  Free  Trade  speech,  and,  as  Cobden 
wrote  the  next  day  to  a  friend:  "it  would  have  done  for  Covenl  Garden 
Theatre,"  the  place  where  the  League  meetings  were  held.  It  was  not 
the  speech  of  a  Minister  who  was  yielding  to  pressure,  bu1  of  a  man 
who  had  become  convinced.  As  he  said  a  few  nights  afterward,  when 
taunted  by  the  Tories  with  having  deserted  them,  "it  was  the  declara- 
tion of  a  man  who  had  become  converted  to  the  belief  that  the  Prole. 
tive  system  was  not  only  impolitic,  but  unjust." 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  37 

CONCLUSION. 

Tuesday,  January  27th,  1S46,  was  an  exciting  day  in  London.  Al- 
though it  was  known  that  on  that  evening  the  Prime  Minister  intended 
to  propose  in  Parliament  a  radical  change  in  the  commercial  policy  of 
England,  yet  it  was  not  known  in  detail  what  that  change  would  be. 
Although  Parliament  did  not  meet  until  four  or  five  o'clock,  crowds  of 
people  began  to  assemble  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  House  of  Commons 
as  early  as  one  o'clock,  and  before  four  o'clock  the  house  itself  was 
crowded  in  every  part.  Westminster  Hall  had  not  seen  so  great  a  mul- 
titude since  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  while  the  open  street  was 
densely  crowded  from  Westminster  Abbey  to  Whitehall.  The  peers' 
gallery  was  crowded  full  of  Dukes,  and  Earls,  and  Barons,  anxious  to 
learn  the  fate  of  those  monopolies  which  their  order  had  enjoyed  for 
centuries.  The  Duke  of  Cambridge,  the  Queen's  uncle,  was  there,  and 
Prince  Albert  was  accommodated  with  a  seat  inside  the  bar.  After  he 
had  gone  his  presence  there  was  criticised.  There  were  some  super- 
sensitive members  who  resented  the  presence  of  the  Queen's  husband 
within  the  House  of  Commons,  as  an  attempt  of  the  Crown  to  influence 
the  free  debates  of  Parliament.  Some  sort  of  excuse  was  given  by  the 
court,  and  the  Prince  never  entered  the  House  again. 

Those  members  who  were  known  to  be  in  favor  of  Free  Trade,  were 
loudly  cheered  as  the}''  were  severally  recognized,  while  the  Protection- 
ists weretieceivedtQt" silence.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  received  a  great 
ovation.  It  was  Known  that  he  had  promised  Peel  to  assist  him  in  car- 
rying Free  Trade.  Althongh  he  had  opposed  every  popular  movement 
of  his  time,  he  was  always  forgiven,  because  of  Waterloo.  Near  five 
o'clock,  a  roar  of  cheering,  rolling  along  the  street,  announced  the  com- 
ing  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  As  he  alighted  from  his  carriage  he  raised  his 
hat  in  acknowledgement  of  the  heartv  greetings  of  his  countrvmen,  and 
passed  into  the  House.  He  carried  a  small  box  in  his  left  hand.  It 
contained  the  death  warrant  of  the  protective  system.  In  that  little  box 
were  carefully  arranged  the  details  of  the  new  commercial  policy,  the 
enlightened  system  of  Free  Trade. 

In  a  few  minutes  Sir  Robert  Peel  began  his  speech.  For  three  hours 
the  crowd  listened  to  the  minister,  as  one  after  another,  each  protected 
interest  went  down  to  its  doom.  He  gave  due  notice  that  while  he  called 
upon  the  agriculturists  to  resign  the  protection  they  had  long  enjoyed, 
he  should  require  the  manufacturers  to  resign  theirs  also. 

With  unrelenting  hand  he  struck  protection  from  the  linen,  the 
woolen,  and  the  cotton  manufacturers,  from  the  iron-workers  and  the 
silk  weavers,  from  the  soap  makers  and  the  brass-founders,  from  the 


38  -  *      HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

shoe-makers  and  1  he  tanners,  from  ribbon-makers  and  from  hatters,  from 
tin-workers  and  fiom  button-makers,  from  tailors  and  from  carriage 
makers,  from  West  India  sugar  planters,  and  from  everybody. 

With  great  candor  Sir  Robert  Peel  described  the  process  of  his  con- 
version from  the  errors  of  Protection  to  the  truths  of  Five  Trade.  He 
quoted  some  good  doctrine  from  the  American  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
who  had  lately  said:  "By  countervailing  restrictions  we  injure  our  own 
fellow-citizens  much  more  than  the  foreign  nation  at  whom  we  purpose 
to  aim  their  force,  and  in  the  conflict  of  opposing  tariffs  we  sacrifice  our 
own  commerce,  agriculture,  and  navigation.  Let  our  commerce  be  as 
free  as  our  political  institutions.  Let  us  with  revenue  duties  only,  open 
our  ports  to  all  the  world." 

Thus  among  the  missionaries  who  had  helped  to  convert  Sir  Robert 
Peel  was  the  American  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Let  u<  hope  that  the 
time  is  not  far  oft'  when  we  shall  see  another  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
equally  wise. 

Time  to  consider  such  important  changes  was  demanded  by  the  Tories, 
and  two  weeks  was  granted.  There  were  some  who  demanded  that  the 
sense  of  the  country  should  betaken  first,  that  Parliament  should  be 
dissolved,  and  a  new  election  had.     Some  were  in  favor  of  referring  the 

■ 

whole  matter  to  a  "commission,"  and  thus  obtain  a  reprieve.  But  it 
was  no  use,  and  on  Monday,  the  9th  of  February,  the  great  debate  began. 
the  most  important  that  had  taken  place  since  168*.  It  lasted  three 
weeks,  and  more  than  a  hundred  speeches  were  made.  It  was  thought 
the  debate  would  end  on  Friday  night,  the  27th  of  February.  Gnat 
crowds  of  people  waited  in  Parliament  street  all  night  long,  anxious  to 
hear  the  result  The  debate  ended  at  three  o'clock  on  Saturday  morn- 
ing, February  28th,  1846.  When  the  division  was  had.  there  appeared 
to  be — For  the  Government  proposals,  337;  against  them,  240.  The 
revolution  was  accomplished.  The  cheers  of  the  Free  Traders  inside  and 
outside  the  House  waked  up  London.  The  Protectionist  Parliament  ^\' 
1841  had,  in  the  beginning  of  1846,  established  Free  Trade  as  the  com- 
mercial policy  of  England  by  a  majority  of  ninety-seven  vote-.  The 
great  struggle  was  ended,  and  the  industry  of  Britian  was  free.  In  the 
year  1436  the  first  law  Mas  passed  restricting  the  importation  o\'  foreign 
grain.  It  had  been  altered  for  better  and  for  worse  many  times  since 
then,  and  now,  at  the  venerable  age  of  four  hundred  and  ten  years,  it 
was  slain  on  the  spot  where  it  was  born.  As  the  League  had  proclaimed 
from  the  very  beginning,  it  carried  down  with  it  the  whole  system  of 
Protection. 
The  bill  was  not  yet  law;  it  had  to  go  through  the  usual   stages,    and 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TEAD3  IN  ENGLAND.  39 

in  fact  it  was  not  until  May  that  it  passed  the  third  reading,  and  went 
up  to  the  House  of  Lords;  but  all  this  wis  mere  formality,  after  the 
vote  of  February  28th, — the  mere  ceremonial  of  nailing  on  the  coffin  lid, 
and  preparing  the  deceased  for  burial.  When  the  bill  went  up  to  the 
Lords,  the  Tory  peers  made  a  great  pretense  of  throwing  it  out,  but  they 
were  at  last  afraid  to  do  so.  They  had  only  one  man  among  them  of 
really  great  ability.  This  was  Lord  Stanley,  who  had  lately  resigned 
his  place  in  the  Cabinet,  rather  than  consent  to  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws.  The  hopes  of  monopoly  therefore  centered  on  him.  Every  Pro- 
tectionist in  England  was  yelping  behind  him,  "  Gn,  Stanley,  on!  " 

He  made  a  great  speech,  which  for  a  moment  infused  a  little  courage 
into  his  party.  He  opposed  Free  Trade  with  the  sime  vehemence  that 
his  father  and  his  grandfather  had  opposed  railroads,  and  for  the  same 
antiquated  reasons.  The  old  man  used  to  keep  a  lot  of  people  employed, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  shoot  any  railroad  surveyor  who  came  upon  his 
lands.  Lord  Stanley  paraded  over  and  over  again  the  ancient  heresies 
of  the  Protective  system,  as  if  the  steam  engine  and  l!ie  printing  press 
had  not  yet  come.  Shut  out  from  the  light  of  the  19th  century  in  the 
gloomy  grandeur  of  the  House  of  Lords,  his  speech  might  have  been  the 
speech  of  his  ancestor,  fresh  from  the  fight  at  Bcs  worth  Field. 

The  last  squeak  of  "'Protection"  was  Uttered  by  the  Duke  of  Rich- 
mond, who  presented  a  petition  from  the  ribbon-makers,  praying  that 
their  contemptible  monopoly  might  be  spared  from  t\io  general  wreck. 
Once  more,  Richmond  and  Buckingham  called  upon  their  lordships  not 
to  be  afraid  of  the  League,  but  the  fact  wis,  they  were  afraid  of  it. 
They  feared  that  if  they  threw  out  th3  bill,  anl  thereby  compelled  a 
dissolution  of  Parliament,  the  excitement  of  the  people  would  add  such 
power  to  the  League,  that  in  its  rage  its  might  sweep  away  not  only  the 
Corn  Laws  but  the  House  of  Lords  itself.  They  therefore  allowed  the 
bill  to  pass,  and  they  were  so  disheartened,  that  on  the  25th  of  June  the 
bill  went  through  on  its  third  reading,  without  even  a  division. 
That  same  night,  the  Government  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  overthrown. 
On  the  coercion  bill  for  Ireland,  the  irreeo  icilable  Tory  faction,  led  on 
by  Lord  George  Bentinek,  took  revenge  up  ><i  the  Minister  for  his  Free 
Trade  policy  by  voting  with  the  opposition,  and  on  a  division  the 
administration  was  defeated  by  292  to  219.  Sir  Robert  Peel  imme- 
diately resigned.  On  Monday  night  he  announced  his  resignation  in  a 
speech  of  much  good  temper,  pathos  and  dignity.  In  the  very  hour 
of  his  fall  his  political  sky  was  at  its  bri  'litest  O.i  that  very  day  came 
a  dispatch  from  America,  announcing  that  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment had  settled  the  Oregon  question  on  the  terms  proposed  by  him, 


40  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND. 

and  thus  had  dissipated  the  war  cloud  which  for  some  time  had  dark- 
ened the  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

Of  course  much  of  his  speech  was  a  review  of  his  Free  Trade  policy, 
and  to  the  leader  of  the  Free  Trade  movement  he  paid  this  magnani- 
mous tribute.  He  said:  "The  name  which  ought  to  be  associated  with 
the  success  of  the  Free  Trade  measures  is  not  the  name  of  the  noble 
Lord,  the  member  for  London,  nor  is  it  my  name.  It  is  the  name  of  a 
man  who,  acting,  as  I  believe,  from  disinterested  motives,  has.  with  un- 
tiring energy,  by  appeals  to  reason  enforced  their  necessity  with  an  elo- 
quence the  more  to  be  admired  because  it  was  unaffected  and  unadorned; 
— the  name  which  ought  to  be  associated  with  the  success  of  these 
measures  is  the  name  of  Richard  Cobden."  This  lifted  the  Free  Trade 
ers  right  out  of  their  seats,  and  the  cheering  was  loud  and  long.  A 
great  many  Tories  joined  in  it,  for  everbody  liked  Cobden.  At  last, 
in  the  midst  of  deep  silence,  he  said: 

"Sir,  I  shall  leave  office,  I  fear,  with  a  name  severely  censured 
by  many  honorable  gentlemen,  who,  on  public  principle,  deeply  regret 
the  severance  of  party  ties;  I  shall  surrender  power  severely  censured, 
I  fear  again  by  many  honorable  gentlemen,  who,  from  no  interested 
motive,  have  adhered  to  the  principle  of  Protection  as  important  to  the 
welfare  and  interests  of  the  country;  I  shall  leave  a  name  execrated  by 
every  monopolist,  who,  from  less  honorable  motives,  maintains  Protec- 
tion for  his  own  individual  benefit;  but  it  may  be  that  I  shall  Leave  a 
name  sometimes  remembered  with  expressions  of  good  will  in  those  ■ 
places  which  are  the  abode  of  men,  whose  lot  it  is  to  labor,  and  to  earn 
their  daily  bread  by  the  sweat  of  their  brow — a  name  remembered  with 
expressions  of  good  will,  when  they  shall  recreate  their  exhausted 
strength  with  abundant  and  untaxed  food,  the  sweeter  because  it  is  no 
longer  leavened  with  a  sense  of  injustice." 

As  he  took  his  seat,  nearly  the  whole  house  rose  and  cheered  him  vo- 
ciferously for  several  minutes;  only  the  sulky  Protectionist  faction  re- 
mained silent.  Since  the  time  of  Woolsey  no  Prime  Minister  of  Eng- 
land had  fallen  with  greater  dignity. 

When  the  cheering  had  subsided,  he  again  rose  and  moved  that  the 
House  adjourn  till  Friday,  to  give  Lord  John  Russell  time  to  form  the 
new  administration.  Then  taking  the  arm  of  a  friend,  he  left  the  House. 
In  order  to  avoid  the  vast  crowds  in  the  streets,  he  left  by  the  side  door 
that  led  into  Westminster  1  Iall,  and  tried  to  escape  by  that  way,  but 
the  crowd  heard  of  it  and  headed  him  off.  Hundreds  of  men  formed  a 
circle  around  him.  and  with  rude  but  respectful  courtesy,  they  escorted 
him  to  his  home.  Never,  in  the  history  of  England,  was  the  fall  of  a 
Minister  so  like  a  triumph. 


HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  41 

Our  Jiistory  ends  here,  but  a  word  of  postscript  may  not  be  out  of 
place/  As  soon  as  England  was  freed  from  the  incumbrances  of  what 
is  improperly  called  "Protection,"  she  bounded  forward  to  a  prosperity 
greater  than  she  had  ever  known  before.  We  have  avoided  statistics  as 
much  as  possible,  for  they  are  dry  reading,  and  we  offer  only  the  fol- 
lowing statistical  argument  in  proof  of  what  we  say:  In  1846,  the  year 
of  the  Free  Trade  measures,  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
exports  and  imports,  amounted  to  670  millions  of  dollars;  in  1876  it 
was  3,275  millions.  Within  these  figures  may  be  included  all  other 
statistics  of  every  kind. 

The  Free  Trade  policy  has  given  to  the  people  of  England  more  to 
eat,  more  to  wear,  and  better  houses  to  live  in;  it  has  given  them  higher 
wages  with  less  hours  of  labor;  It  has  given  them  more  holidays,  more 
books,  and  more  enjoyments;  their  moral  advancement  has  kept  pace 
with  their  material  prosperity.  The  man  who  sees  the  people  of  Eng- 
land now,  and  remembers  the  English  of  1846  can  scarcely  recognize 
the  people,  so  great  has  been  the  improvement  in  one  generation. 

On  the  impartial  Protectionist  seeking  to  know  the  truth,  these  facts 
and  figures  may  have  some  weight;  on  the  selfish  Protectionist,  inter- 
ested in  the  preservation  of  monopoly,  they  will  make  no  impression. 
On  him  reason,  argument,  facts,  and  figures  are  all  lost.  To  him  the 
instructive  numbers  we  have  just  given  are  unsubstantial  and  unreal, 
a  vagary  of  Free  Trade,  a  theory  and  a  delusion.  To  him  a  barn,  or  a 
•ship,  or  a  grain  elevator  is  nothing  but  a  cloud,  and  "very  like  a  whale;" 
to  him  the  demonstrations  of  geometry  are  only  the  fanatical  theories  of 
Euclid.     He  is  outside  the  courts  of  reason. 

We  treat  with  respect  every  Protectionist  argument  except  one — that 
which  consists  in  a  sneer  at  the  Free  Trade  policy  of  Great  Britain,  a 
policy  which  has  been  so  largely  beneficial,  not  only  to  the  people  of 
England,  but  to  the  people  of  America.  It  is  difficult  to  keep  down  an 
expression  of  contempt  when  we  hear  men  who  inhabit  the  fertile  plain 
between  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers,  speak  with  derision  of  a 
policy  which  offers  them  a  free  and  open  market  for  everything  they 
raise,  and  for  everything  they  are  able  to  manufacture,  a  policy  which 
has  not  only  multiplied  the  comforts  of  life  to  all  the  people  of  Great 
Britain,  but  which  has  given  an  added  value  to  every  acre  of  land  in 

OF  THE 

UNIVER8ITY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED    FOR   FAILURE  TO   RETURN 
THIS   BOOK   ON   THE   DATE   DUE.   THE   PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY    AND    TO    $1.00    ON    THE    SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

LI 

r/wVBKl 

^  J  \U1    Okj  u  f\    , 

,       Uthc'SffFtf 

-  . 

■  ■  It: 

«N  STACKS 

APR  1 0 1939 

jhI~s      Q 

j^ee-D  ld 

uftv  o  R'fiA    /I  P 

H 

Mat  /  ^  !?t  c*  r 

LD  21-100m-7,'40 (6936s) 

/ 


•7a 


